"Jan Beulich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While, as Andreas also pointed out, the standard is a little vague in > some of what it tries to explain here, it is in my opinion clearly said > that the re-scanning restrictions are bound to the macro name, not > the fact that a function-like macro's expansion result is being > re-scanned. Hence, the re-scanning process of x has to be > considered still in progress while expanding alt_x, and consequently > x should not be subject to expansion anymore.
I think this thread on comp.std.c covers all questions. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/ad28864b2c50bc30/a78d02f4c510124b?tvc=2 Apparently there is some unspecified behaviour connected with this example, see <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/msg/2cecad19690c5c32>. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."
