Code Comments
Programming Forum and web based access to our favorite programming groups."Karl Kiesel" <Karl.Kiesel@fujitsu-siemens.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:fb115t$6kc$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com... > "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:e4EAi.169153$Bo7.88986@fe07.news.easynews.com... > Bill, > that is just the problem I see here! The STD2002 defines a sequence of > separate stages of compilation (see chapter 7) but the earlier stage (text > manipulation) may need information that can only be obtained from the > later stage (compilation): expressions within >>IF and >>EVALUATE > directives may be formed using literals (for example see STD2002 7.2.7.1 > syntax rule 1) and i did not find any rule, that forbids using a constant > in place of a literal in these expressions. Therefore, to complete the > text manipulation stage, a compiler must be able to evaluate constant > conditional expressions in directives, but this is impossible, if a > constant is involved, beause processing (ie recognition and especially > determining the value) of such a constant entry is definitely part of the > later stage - but this stage can not be entered unless the previous stage > has been completed! In this sense, using constants within directives is a > form of 'forward reference'; If the concept of stages within the STD2002 > is to be kept - and I would not like to give it up! - constant entries are > a problem that make implementaion rather hard, if not impossible. > > Karl Kiesel > Fujitsu Siemens Computers > > Geez, you beat me to it. I had studied the standard for the last x hours/days. I had come to the conclusion as you did. I was still trying to find the reverse arguments. Incidentally a GLOBAL CONSTANT is somewhat different in that it has to abide by the GLOBAL constraint. ie. This is only possible to refernce backwards. Roger Roger
Post Follow-up to this messagePowered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2006 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.