On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 06:45:55PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > >I personally like the fact that gcc's behavior does not depend on > >invisible characters > > All other things being equal, this is a nice design goal. I like it > too. Should we break peoples otherwise portable code to have an > implementation defined behavior that no one else has?
Code that depends on invisible whitespace to function correctly is already broken. At some point, someone will do the equivalent of delete-trailing-whitespace and break it. And the code is easily cleaned up.
