From Craig.Dedo@mixcom.com Fri Feb 7 20:12:04 1997 Received: from ratatosk.DK.net (root@ratatosk.DK.net [193.88.44.22]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21454 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:12:03 +0100 Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by ratatosk.DK.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02222 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:11:54 +0100 Received: from 205.254.192.57 by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id MAA07845; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:52:56 -0600 Message-Id: <199702071852.MAA07845@mixcom.mixcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Feb 97 12:52:44 -0600 From: Craig Dedo Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1270) Informal Review of Source Processing Draft Standard To: WG5 Mailing List X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Dear WG5 Mailing List: I copied this message to the WG5 Mailing List last night. I have not yet received my copy, so I am re-sending it. <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 20:50:32 -0600 From: Craig Dedo Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1270) Informal Review of Source Processing Draft Standard To: Larry Rolison Cc: WG5 Mailing List In-Reply-To: <199701272024.VAA22705@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Dear Larry: On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Larry Rolison wrote: >Much of this was derived from the informal ballot announcement that Miles >crafted and sent out regarding N1243 (the "Fortran-like" conditional >compilation paper). This call for an informal ballot is for N1247 (the >"cpp-like" source processing paper). > [snip] > >Informal Ballot on N1247 (Draft Standard for Source Processing in Fortran) > > ____________ >I believe that the current draft should supplant | YES | NO | >the current "Fortran-like" model in all further | | X | >considerations of source processing ("conditional ------------ >compilation") > >(signed) Craig T. Dedo........................... > >(date) February 6, 1997........................ Please accept this even though it is past the due date. It has been a very long week. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Main on this one, ESPECIALLY his first point. Namely: 1. I don't like introducing C expression syntax into the Fortran standard. If I liked C expression syntax, I'd be using C. I believe it introduces confusion to mix the two in the same source file. 2. I have long considered the #ifdef construct and its relatives to be a horribly designed feature in that it is extremely error prone. It is inherently vulnerable to typos. If you mistype the name, either in the #define or the #ifdef, then you just get the wrong result - no error message. Even getting the case of a letter wrong will mess you up, or mistyping O for 0. I've made such mistakes with cpp more than once myself, and I've helped other people debug when they made it. I am opposed to copying this misfeature. I much prefer to see something like in the Fortran language (or for that matter the C language), where you test the value of variables instead of testing whether the variable is defined or not. ---------- Sincerely, Craig T. Dedo Internet: Craig.Dedo@mixcom.com Elmbrook Computer Services Voice Phone: (414) 783-5869 17130 W. Burleigh Place Brookfield, WI 53005 Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. USA They do NOT represent any organization. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1759) <---- End Forwarded Message ----> ---------- Sincerely, Craig T. Dedo Internet: Craig.Dedo@mixcom.com Elmbrook Computer Services Voice Phone: (414) 783-5869 17130 W. Burleigh Place Brookfield, WI 53005 Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. USA They do NOT represent any organization. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1759)