In article <gIP3yEpfhe6c092yn@nada.kth.se> d96-mst@nada.kth.se (Mikael St   ldal) writes:
>In article <199701140605.WAA09820@taumet.eng.sun.com>,
>stephen.clamage@Eng (Steve Clamage) wrote:
>>>But the real issue is, will there be any <iso646.h> header that I have
>>>to #include in order to use these "keywords"?
>>
>>You do not need to include that header to get the alternative
>>representations. They are built into the language.
>
>Will that differ from C?

Yes.

>That's not good.

Yes, no, and maybe :-(

> But I think the C++ way is better

I agree.

>so the <iso646.h> header should be removed from C and not added
>to C++.

I would have hoped myself, but both committees are finished with their
say on it.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
               Producers of Comeau C++ 4.0 front-end pre-release
****WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
 Here:comeau@comeaucomputing.com / BIX:comeau or comeau@bix.com / CIS:72331,3421
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article <NYq1yEpfhW/Y092yn@nada.kth.se> d96-mst@nada.kth.se (Mikael St   ldal) writes:
>In article <5b0gbr$poc$1@jake.esu.edu>,
>jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu (John E. Potter) wrote:
>>CD1 2.8 Keywords [lex.key]
>>/1  Table 3 keywords                         does not include them
>>/2  Table 4 alternative representations      does
>>/4  preprocessing-op-or-punc                 does
>>
>>I interpret this as saying they are the equavalent of a macro since they
>>are converted in the final lexical phase prior to parsing.
>
>But the real issue is, will there be any <iso646.h> header that I have
>to #include in order to use these "keywords"?

<iso646.h> (or <ciso646>) is not needed for these keywords.
If you have dual code which can compiler under either,
perhaps you should leverage off of __cplusplus.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
               Producers of Comeau C++ 4.0 front-end pre-release
****WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
 Here:comeau@comeaucomputing.com / BIX:comeau or comeau@bix.com / CIS:72331,3421
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article <199701140605.WAA09820@taumet.eng.sun.com>,
stephen.clamage@Eng (Steve Clamage) wrote:
>>But the real issue is, will there be any <iso646.h> header that I have
>>to #include in order to use these "keywords"?
>
>You do not need to include that header to get the alternative
>representations. They are built into the language.

Will that differ from C? That's not good. But I think the C++ way is
better so the <iso646.h> header should be removed from C and not added
to C++.


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In article <5b0gbr$poc$1@jake.esu.edu>,
jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu (John E. Potter) wrote:
>CD1 2.8 Keywords [lex.key]
>/1  Table 3 keywords                         does not include them
>/2  Table 4 alternative representations      does
>/4  preprocessing-op-or-punc                 does
>
>I interpret this as saying they are the equavalent of a macro since they
>are converted in the final lexical phase prior to parsing.

But the real issue is, will there be any <iso646.h> header that I have
to #include in order to use these "keywords"?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

Greg Comeau (comeau@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <i3tzyEpfhWWc090yn@nada.kth.se> d96-mst@nada.kth.se
:     (Mikael St   ldal) writes:
: >If I have understood things correctly, the new C standard will include
: >the keywords 'and', 'and_eq', 'bitand' etc as macros in <iso646.h> and
: >not as real keywords. According to ARM, they are real keywords. Will
: >they be ARM keywords or C macros in the C++ standard?

: AFAIK no version of the ARM discusses these names.

ARM c 1990 printing 12 page 409 chapter 19 "the following keywords"
lists the above items.  Note _keyword_.

: They are however discussed in the C++ working paper (as keywords
: that come about as the "right things" during the phases of translation).

CD1 2.8 Keywords [lex.key]
/1  Table 3 keywords                         does not include them
/2  Table 4 alternative representations      does
/4  preprocessing-op-or-punc                 does

I interpret this as saying they are the equavalent of a macro since they
are converted in the final lexical phase prior to parsing.  If you
consider "&&" a keyword, then "and" is a keyword.  They both result in
the same token.  This is unlike the keyword "for" which results in the
token "for" (possibly in a different character set).

John
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article <5b0gbr$poc$1@jake.esu.edu> jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu (John E. Potter) writes:
>Greg Comeau (comeau@panix.com) wrote:
>: In article <i3tzyEpfhWWc090yn@nada.kth.se> d96-mst@nada.kth.se
>:     (Mikael St   ldal) writes:
>: >If I have understood things correctly, the new C standard will include
>: >the keywords 'and', 'and_eq', 'bitand' etc as macros in <iso646.h> and
>: >not as real keywords. According to ARM, they are real keywords. Will
>: >they be ARM keywords or C macros in the C++ standard?
>
>: AFAIK no version of the ARM discusses these names.
>
>ARM c 1990 printing 12 page 409 chapter 19 "the following keywords"
>lists the above items.  Note _keyword_.
>
>: They are however discussed in the C++ working paper (as keywords
>: that come about as the "right things" during the phases of translation).
>
>CD1 2.8 Keywords [lex.key]
>/1  Table 3 keywords                         does not include them
>/2  Table 4 alternative representations      does
>/4  preprocessing-op-or-punc                 does
>
>I interpret this as saying they are the equavalent of a macro since they
>are converted in the final lexical phase prior to parsing.  If you
>consider "&&" a keyword, then "and" is a keyword.  They both result in
>the same token.  This is unlike the keyword "for" which results in the
>token "for" (possibly in a different character set).

I suppose one could make the case that they are reserved words, and so hence,
keywords, just _not at the same lexical level_.  OTOH, I suppose one would
make the case that that's weak and inventive.

I probably should have said "as [reserved] [preprocessing] tokens",
or something like that.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
               Producers of Comeau C++ 4.0 front-end pre-release
****WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
 Here:comeau@comeaucomputing.com / BIX:comeau or comeau@bix.com / CIS:72331,3421


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

If I have understood things correctly, the new C standard will include
the keywords 'and', 'and_eq', 'bitand' etc as macros in <iso646.h> and
not as real keywords. According to ARM, they are real keywords. Will
they be ARM keywords or C macros in the C++ standard?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]

In article <i3tzyEpfhWWc090yn@nada.kth.se> d96-mst@nada.kth.se (Mikael St   ldal) writes:
>If I have understood things correctly, the new C standard will include
>the keywords 'and', 'and_eq', 'bitand' etc as macros in <iso646.h> and
>not as real keywords. According to ARM, they are real keywords. Will
>they be ARM keywords or C macros in the C++ standard?

AFAIK no version of the ARM discusses these names.
They are however discussed in the C++ working paper (as keywords
that come about as the "right things" during the phases of translation).

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
               Producers of Comeau C++ 4.0 front-end pre-release
****WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
 Here:comeau@comeaucomputing.com / BIX:comeau or comeau@bix.com / CIS:72331,3421


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]