https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32073
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de> --- (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #8) > > 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? I fear the only non-contentious answer to all such questions is: "act in the same way as currently" :-/ I.e. try it out and emulate the behaviour. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
