------- Additional Comments From zack at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-21 20:23 ------- Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
"geoffk at geoffk dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> The second half would a pp-number, instead. It is always true that >>> splitting an identifier between characters yields two valid >>> preprocessing tokens. >> >> It would not be a pp-number, as a UCN for a digit is still an >> identifier-nondigit rather than a digit in terms of the syntax and >> pp-numbers can't start with identifiers-nondigits. > > That's a defect in the standard, the tail of an identifier is supposed > to be either an identifier or a pp-number, that's why pp-number exists. Arguably yes. *shrug* You perhaps begin to see why I did not want this feature implemented? Or at least why I want it done with great caution and consideration of all these corner cases? Does your opinion of this particular corner case change in view of C++ not permitting most of the "digit" UCNs in identifiers at all? zw -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9449
