https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32073
--- Comment #8 from Jan Beulich <jbeulich at suse dot com> --- (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #5) > Yet then documentation is unclear on whether there may be whitespace between > the \ and the parameter name. We could of course make macro expansion skip > whitespace when a valid parameter name follows. Yet I fear there could be > other anomalies as a result. I've looked into what the options are of fixing this particular issue. Dealing with the one question of "should blanks be skipped here" quickly turns into a series of such questions, perhaps one for every individual transformation that is done while expanding a macro: - Is \( a token, or can there be whitespace? - Are \@ and \+ tokens, or can there be whitespace? - There's also \& with a comment alluding to preprocessor variables. - Is & used for macro parameter references permitted to be followed by whitespace? If so, what about the optional trailing & ? - Same for @. My intuitive answers to these wouldn't all be the same. For example I'd be more inclined to not permit whitespace in @name@ references. Yet I don't even know the origin of that kind of construct, so how should I be able to tell? Plus of course there's then also the question of whether whitespace should survive when processing something that looks like a param ref, but really isn't (as can easily be the case in nested macros). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
