Chet Ramey <[email protected]> wrote: > > You seem to missunderstand me. > > Sure, OK. Frame it how you like. The question stands. If that is how > every existing alias implementation behaves, we should not argue about > adding that to the standard to tighten up the meaning of "the resulting > tokens shall replace the TOKEN." Or are you saying that is covered by > "the value of the alias shall be processed to form tokens?"
AFAIR the teleconference, we did like to express that one token may be replaced by one or more tokens after the re-scan by the lexer did take place. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
