From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89ff62b8449f197
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Ada and robots
Date: 1997/07/04
Message-ID: <5phspj$cpf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 254535598
References: <199707022232.SAA29978@twins.ctron.com>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
NNTP-Posting-User: ok
Date: 1997-07-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Huy Vo <vo@CTRON.COM> writes:

>#include stdio.h

>appears to be an acceptable form according  to Kernighan & Ritchie 2; I doubt
>the standard will say otherwise. I stand corrected.

The standard does say otherwise.

	#include <stuff>			is standard
	#include "stuff"			is standard
	#include macro				is standard

The third form is important and useful (and tricky, because the "stuff" is
not a string literal, and <stuff> isn't like any other token in C, but
the macro call is made of normal C tokens).  However,

	#include stuff.stuff			is NOT standard

There would be no problem with
	#include stdio
but for that to be meaningful, stdio would have to be a macro that was
defined to expand to one of the other forms.

-- 
Four policemen playing jazz on an up escalator in the railway station.
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.