Re: Syntax and redundancy

[Antero Vipunen <antero@...>]

Rici Lake wrote:

> None of those test cases has a "," unprotected by "("..")"
>
> gnu cpp does not implement arbitrary semantics, by the way. C 
> pre-processing semantics are defined in great detail in the ANSI 
> standard. If your cpp is not conformant, you should get another one. 
> (But I suspect that Intel's is.)
Ah. Now I see the problem. Wim Couwenberg was right in his remark, that 
PP matches only `(...)'.
Sorry, sometimes I make too much meaningless noise.

AMDG,
 Antero Vipunen.