Re: [patch] beginnings of the macro rewrite

[Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>]

In article < 20000422103307.C8273@wolery.cumb.org > you write:
>On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 04:15:54PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
>> Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> said on gcc-patches:
>> > Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> > > IMPORTANT: This drops support for traditional macros.  I will put it
>> > > back if people complain loudly enough.  If no one cares then I will
>> > > probably drop -traditional entirely, sometime next week.
>> > > -Wtraditional still works.
>> 
>> > It might not get too much reaction on this list, but I suggest
>> > you make this checkin anonymously, so the lynch mob of users
>> > won't be able to come find you. 1/2 :-)
>> > 
>> > -traditional will be important to support in GCC for at least
>> > another 10 years, possibly longer, depending on the longevity
>> > of various old code bases.
[...]

>- comments are replaced by nothing _after_ arguments are substituted,
>  which means /**/ can be used to paste tokens.

I'm somewhat behind on current gcc discussion, but I agree 110% with
Stan there.

*If* you drop traditional macro support from cpplib, then that means
that a whole host of vendors will have to resort to, either keep an older
version of GNU cpp around (which you probably don't want, thanks to the
improvements you've done), or switch *definitively* to a smaller, 
no-thrills-but-no-surprise-either cpp.

This is probably not quite the effect you're looking for...

Personally, I don't care much for traditional cpp, but most OSes still have
dark corners, where code that needs it lurks... Granted, postponing the
rewrite forever is not a good idea, but we would rather make the decision 
by ourselves than having it forced down our collective throats.