snodx@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Thanx michal017@xxxxxxxxxx, Rupert Wood and others for your responses
>
> Eljay Love-Jensen wrote:
>
> >Your macro magic expand to...
>
> >int square_func(int) void snodx() { return; }; //LINE 5
>
> >...which is not valid C or C++. If you want, you could make
> your own computer programming language where this is a valid syntax.
>
> If square_func is not valid C or C++ syntax then the same property of invalid
> C/C++ syntax should apply to
>
> extern int fcloseall(void) __THROW;
>
> which should expand to
>
> extern int fcloseall(void) throw();
I don't think you are looking closely enough at the code. If c is
being compiled, __THROW expands to nothing.
>
> When I declare square_func(int) as
>
> int square_func(int) __THROW;
>
> then the code compiles fine with gcc
>
> "m" <michal017@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Isn't throw() or throw a reserved keyword?
> >You can't override int or char or bool or void.. so you can't override throw.. ;)
> >That's how I understand it..
>
> My question is according to the 'C' language valid forms of function declarations are:
>
> <storage-class-type> <return-type> <function-name>(<parameter type list>);
>
No.
>
> But then
>
> extern int fcloseall(void) __THROW;
>
> does'nt seem to fit into this syntax.
Macros lie to you.
