(j3.2006) (j3.2005) Re: question on token replacement/concatenation
Tue Jan 23 15:15:18 EST 2007
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 02:04, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> W.r.t. 3.14_WP, I think that the right fix is to correct our faulty
> definition of a token.
I understand the part about the wp being a name and having a life on its own.
But I also do not think one should treat 3.14_wp as three separate lexical
tokens. They really do go together. Otherwise write REAL(3.14,wp). Maybe this
requires introducing some concept of a "composite lexical token", if there
are any examples other than literal constants.
> If we want that to have no "user effect" (i.e.
> the compiler writers not to have to change anything) we can forbid
> blanks in between the tokens of a literal constant.
But doesn't that directly contradict what Dick wants to do, write:
and sometimes pass "_ wp" for kind and other times pass nothing? What about
"_wp", is that a valid macro actual argument (it is not a lexical token it
seems to me)?
As a user, I'd like to write
without spaces and then pass either nothing or "_wp" as a macro actual for
More information about the J3