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: Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>
- Subject: Re: C++ alternative tokens in the preprocessor
- From: Dave Brolley <brolley at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:54:20 -0400
- CC: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>, zack at wolery dot cumb dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Red Hat Canada, Inc
- 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> <fl4s5nxiur.fsf@sel.cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
>
> | > 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 second your note; I think "ill-formed" or "invalid" may be good
> qualifiers.
At IBM, we never used 'invalid' because it tends to get
translated as 'physically challenged'.
Dave