Re: 5.1 RTL macros

[Lisa Parratt <lisa@...>]

David Jones wrote:
> It's often useful in lexing.  The functionality of ungetc will always be 
> needed, and I think that's unavoidable.  So if it didn't exist then lots 
> of programs would end up implementing their own version of Standard C IO 
> streams, but with one byte of pushback.

Meh - few excuses that still hold in this day and age for not buffering 
in memory before processing, imho.

> I'm curious as to why you don't like it so much.  Is it buggy vendor 
> implementations? Non-portable C code that relied on more than one byte 
> of ungetc? Having to implement a C-like stream interface on top of an 
> abstraction that didn't provide anything like ungetc? Or something else?

All of the above. It also adds a special case when coding 
implementations - makes the code fugly imho.

--
Lisa