[Fwd: Re: [sv-bc] P1800-2008 draft 4 pg 526]

Coffin, Eric wrote:

> Greg,
> 
> How about another option:
> 
> d) 666 + 42 + 42 + ke + ke
> 
> Wouldn't that make more sense if the use of 'foo' and '\foo' were first 
> substituted with ke and then the body were further expanded?
> 
> -Eric

Yes, that's actually what I meant to write for (b), sorry.  It's the next most
sensible answer once escaped names are made secure.  The power for a macro
to invoke an actual argument as a macro looks nice in such a small example.
Expanding `sna(ke+1) as  666 + 42+1 + 42+1 + ke+1 + ke+1  looks less
appealing than           666 + 69 + 69 + ke+1 + ke+1 .

My related question about the "tokenness" of `identifier also sets up
the question of whether getting ` and ke together in this example doesn't
perhaps require token gluing.  If not, then can I:

`     define foo tasking4it
      always begin `
         foo( arg1, arg2 );
      end

      task tasking4it( a, b );
        ...
      endtask

?

Greg
Greg Jaxon wrote:
>
>  `define \foo(3)  666
>  `define sna(foo) `\foo(3)  + `\foo  + `foo + \foo  + foo
>  `define foo 69
>  `define ke 42
>
> Does  `sna(ke)  expands to:
>
>   a)  666 + 69 + 69 + ke + ke
>   b)  `\ke(3) + `42 + `42 + 42 + 42       // with errors of course
>   c)  `\ke(3) + `\ke  + `42 + \ke  + 42   // also errors
>
>
>   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.