Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited

[Dan McGuirk]

On 6 Aug 1998, Paul Fisher wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > That doesn't seem right -- I mean, emacs doesn't require that you
> > use gcc to compile it.
> 
> The preprocessor could be shipped as a stand-alone program and as an
> integrated extension to guavac.  If it's part of guavac, then it might
> get more use by people outside the Classpath project.

What is wrong with "gcc -E" or whatever the system's cpp is?  Too many
features?