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: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:11:44 -0700
- Cc: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <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> <200007182041.WAA01826@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <3974C6F8.7E41ABCF@apple.com>
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 02:07:04PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> "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++
> >
> [...]
> >
> > I'd appreciate comments and recommendations from native speakers of
> > the English language what terminology would be acceptable.
>
> I would suggest "not a valid macro name", or the slightly more wordy
> "cannot be used as a macro name" (it's also passive, which is usually
> bad, but in this situation it sounds more deferential, which is a good
> way to calm the about-to-go-into-a-towering-rage programmer seeing the
> message :-) ).
I have no personal objection to "legal" in error messages,
particularly when they are because of standards violations. But in
the interest of diplomacy, I'll change it.
I'll try to get these alternative tokens implemented today, but it may
not be till late tonight.
zw