(j3.2006) (j3.2005) Re: question on token replacement/concatenation

[Aleksandar Donev]

On Monday 22 January 2007 14:11, Dick Hendrickson wrote:
> Do we
> want to allow people to manipulate macro things that have an "_"
> or "%" as the leading character (or maybe don't qualify as lexical
> tokens for some other reason)?
Originally I would have said no, this kind of string-based hacking of macros 
should not be allowed. But, since it seems we allow rather bizzare and hacky 
macro catenations anyway. For example, "**3" is perfectly valid as a lexical 
token sequence even though it makes no more or less sense than "%component". 
We should be consistent and simply allow everything that can be inambiguously 
parsed. I still believe we need to add syntax to delimit such macro 
arguments, so as to allow commas and semicolons, which seem to me more 
important than "%a" or "_3".
IMHO,
Aleks

-- 
Aleksandar Donev, Ph.D.
Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow @ LLNL
High Performance Computational Materials Science and Chemistry
E-mail: donev1 at llnl.gov
Phone: (925) 424-6816  Fax: (925) 423-0785
Address: P.O.Box 808, L-367, Livermore, CA 94551-9900
Web: http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/donev