From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  1 22:14:33 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2C44316A4CE; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 22:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.85])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7A07843D2D; Mon,  1 Mar 2004 22:14:32 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au
	[61.8.0.86])i226ELnX001874;	Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:14:21 +1100
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	i226EJsJ027213;	Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:14:20 +1100
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:14:18 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at>
In-Reply-To: <20040301224712.GB959@wombat.fafoe.narf.at>
Message-ID: <20040302164649.K8656@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20040301213454.GA959@wombat.fafoe.narf.at>
 <200403012158.i21LwS0w084961@grimreaper.grondar.org>
 <20040301224712.GB959@wombat.fafoe.narf.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 vs 0L bikeshed time
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:14:33 -0000

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:58:28PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote:
> > Stefan Farfeleder writes:
> > > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 03:46:35PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote:
> > >
> > > > -#define        NULL    0L
> > > > +#define        NULL    (0L)
> > >
> > > What's the point of parenthesizing 0L?
> >
> > Its two lexical elements. I got into the habit of doing that when a
> > macro replacement bit me some years ago. It is a very unimportant part
> > of the patch. :-)
>
> While I agree that it's quite unimportant, I have to contradict you.
> `OL' is a pp-number which is converted to an integer-constant in
> translation phase 7 according to the C standard.  It always is a single
> token.

Understanding pp-numbers and transaltion phases is unecessary for this.
Quoting small parts of section 6.4:

    token:
	...
	constant
	...
    constant:
	integer-constant
	...
    integer-constant:
	decimal-constant integer-suffix-opt
	...

So the suffix is part of the token for integer constants.

pp-numbers and translation phases, whatever they are, must be consistent
with this.  For tokens, I think this just means that every C token is a
pp-token.

Bruce