#define

[Paul Mensonides]

Yes, I realized that very quickly. I can't even get anyone here to
agree that anything needs to be fixed.

It isn't that I don't agree that the kind of danger you refer to doesn't exist.
Instead, its that I don't consider it a big enough problem to prohibit the
utility of the implicit conversion to 0. IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs.

Regards,
Paul Mensonides

 

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Natalie <[email protected]> wrote in message

I do. I just didn't use precise enough language in this pedantic place. I am
aware that the 'X' in 'MAX' would not be replaced by 'Y'.

There's much more to it than that.

Okay. Why you didn't correct Stroustrup's loose language as well?

Because Stroustrup wasn't wrong. You were. The only reference to text
on the page you reference says "the preprocessor rearranges the text ..."
He doesn't say anything specific about macro replacment

Getting off the track.

You're the one driving us there.

 

[David White]

There's much more to it than that.

No kidding? I called the preprocessor a "text" replacer while discussing its
replacement of an undefined symbol with "0" instead of with nothing at all.
This was a correct statement. A token is composed of text. Therefore if you
replace a token you are replacing text. Then I gave an example in which my
language was not precise enough and was corrected. I accepted the correction
to the more precise term 'token' and added an example. And now I get,
completely unnecessarily, but perhaps predictably, "There's much more to it
than that". Really? What a revelation. I've just looked up "The C++
Programming Language", and (my God!), the preprocessor also has #include,
which lets you include a whole other file! And it even has macros with
parameters! And a macro can even use another macro! And there are other
things as well!

You're the one driving us there.

No, you are, with this ridiculous waste of time.

DW