This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Subject: Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- From: "Matt Minnis" <mminnis at prefres dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:58:12 -0500
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20000718124510.U7027@wolery.cumb.org><200007180742.JAA29205@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de><20000718011537.K7027@wolery.cumb.org><200007181850.UAA01051@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de><20000718124510.U7027@wolery.cumb.org>
Martin,
Here are my $.02
"Valid" as in: "and" is not a valid macro name in C++
"Known" as in: "and" is not a known macro name in C++
Thanks,
Matt Minnis
At 10:41 PM 7/18/2000 +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > This is not a good error message. It expects the user to know gritty
> > details of the official grammar. I would much rather see something
> > like
> >
> > a.cc:1:9: "and" is not a legal macro name in C++
>
>This is slightly off-topic now, but I was going to make the comment
>that I feel such an error message is inappropriate; in particular,
>that use of the adjective "legal" is.
>
>I believe it was RMS who once mentioned that the compiler should not
>declare things "illegal"
>(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-09n/msg00395.html), with "not legal"
>probably being just as bad.
>
>I always used "ill-formed", to describe the code and not its authors,
>but that may be a bit technical.
>
>I'd appreciate comments and recommendations from native speakers of
>the English language what terminology would be acceptable.
>
>Regards,
>Martin
Cthulhu for President. Why settle for a lesser evil?
=========================================================
Preferred Resources (314) 567-7600 phone
701 Emerson rd. (314) 993-6699 fax
Suite 475 mminnis@prefres.com
St. Louis, MO
63141
=========================================================