geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:- > > ------- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 > 22:34 ------- > (In reply to comment #39) > > Another reason why spelling needs preserving (in addition to implementing # > > correctly) is for the constraints on duplicate macro definitions. > > > > #define foo \u00c1 > > #define foo \u00C1 > > > > is invalid (different spelling in replacement), as is > > We discussed this on the list and decided that this was probably a defect in > the C standard, since the > Rationale says that the kind of implementation we have now is supposed to be > permitted, and jsm said > he'd file a DR. How's that going?
I very much doubt this is a defect. Just because it doesn't fit your implementation... Neil.
