Smylers wrote:
I take "valid identifier" to mean something which is syntactically valid
as an identifier, rather than something that is in the finite set of
identifiers which C actually uses.
Correct.
Although, as Larry pointed out, given the compile-time nature of option keys,
there's no reason
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:56:52AM -0800, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
: Smylers --
:
: I think the claim in E7 is stronger, that not only does the string match
: the identifier pattern, but that it is a 'valid' (known, declared)
: identifier. Else, what would be the point of saying both:
:
: * "cont
Smylers --
I think the claim in E7 is stronger, that not only does the string match
the identifier pattern, but that it is a 'valid' (known, declared)
identifier. Else, what would be the point of saying both:
* "contains a valid identifier", and
* "check the validity before the program starts
Gregor N. Purdy writes:
> "...we're guaranteed that the key of the resulting pair is a string,
> that the string [...] contains a valid identifier, and that the
> compiler can check the validity before the program starts."
>
> We aren't told what validity checking the compiler is doing. I figure
