Serious error-causing change in new CPP's -traditional behavior

[Neil Booth]

Neil Booth wrote:-

> No, I don't think it is.  You're right that order of evaluation isn't
> specified, but you can't just "lose" the # like you suggest:-
> 
> 6.10.3.2.1: Each # preprocessing token in the replacement list of a
> function-like macro shall be followed by a parameter as the next
> preprocessing token in the replacement list.

Sorry to reply to my own mail, but this events occur at different
times anway.

The lack of an argument following the # should be caught when parsing
the #define.  The ## pasting is not done until expansion time, right?

Neil.