Re: Macro redefinition
- From: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Tobin)
- Date: 31 Aug 2007 19:41:31 GMT
In article <LNydnc50yPs98kXbRVnzvQA@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keith, I don't get your point. Doesn't the
"unless the second definition is a function-like macro definition that
has the same number and spelling of parameters, and the two replacement
lists are identical"
apply?
The replacement lists were different. One had generate_source_1,
the other generate_source_2. There wouldn't have been much point
if they were the same.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
.
- References:
- Macro redefinition
- From: Tor Rustad
- Re: Macro redefinition
- From: Tor Rustad
- Re: Macro redefinition
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Macro redefinition
- From: Tor Rustad
- Macro redefinition
- Prev by Date: Re: Porting C software
- Next by Date: Re: Macro redefinition
- Previous by thread: Re: Macro redefinition
- Next by thread: Re: Macro redefinition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|