>From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> >In any case, the 3.0 text can be interpreted as implying: > >1. You don't need back ticks for the usual case of simple opening and closing quotation marks. This could be inferred from the phrase "an isolated quote". > >2. In a macro text definition, if quotation marks are preceded by back ticks, then macro arguments are expanded. However, if regular quotation marks are used, then macro arguments inside the quotation marks are not expanded. This could be inferred from the sentence, " This allows macro arguments to be included in strings." Yes, I believe this was the intent. > (I don't know what tools did on 1364 code.) If they were implemented correctly, they did not substitute macro actuals for macro formals inside string literals. More accurately, they did not substitute them for text inside string literals that happened to have the same sequence of characters as a macro formal. There are no macro formals inside a string literal, just text. From 1364-2001 section 19.3.1, "A formal argument can be used in the macro text in the same manner as an identifier." There are no identifiers inside string literals, even if there is a sequence of characters that happens to match the name of an identifier. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:12:03 -0500 (EST)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 15 2006 - 16:12:13 PST