Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Tommy <bad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:27:56 -0500
Igor Tandetnik wrote:
The C++ language is what the C++ standard says it is. A C++ compiler that doesn't follow the C++ standard is called non-conforming, which is just a eupemism for "buggy".
I see your message vanity lines cite an RFC document. If every implementator followed your line of thought (which they don't), every MAIL PRODUCT in the market would be in some way or another "non-conforming", broken, and "buggy."
The only thing of interest shown in this thread, like in other similar threads, is that poor, ambiguous coding can confuse compilers, interpreters and/or results.
So what else is new?
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alexander Grigoriev
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- References:
- #define and (brackets)
- From: Gerry Hickman
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: David Webber
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alan Carre
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Igor Tandetnik
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alan Carre
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alan Carre
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Igor Tandetnik
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alan Carre
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Igor Tandetnik
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Alan Carre
- Re: #define and (brackets)
- From: Igor Tandetnik
- #define and (brackets)
- Prev by Date: Re: (Win API) Editbox context menu
- Next by Date: Re: #define and (brackets)
- Previous by thread: Re: #define and (brackets)
- Next by thread: Re: #define and (brackets)
- Index(es):