[cap-talk] definition of the term "safe language"

[radix42 at gmail.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at>
On 9 Apr 2010, at 20:14, 

"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.org> wrote:
>
> Certainly. And in fact, C has *two* such abstractions. C is both
> "syntax safe" (the parsing rules are enforced") and "comment safe"
> (comments are in fact ignored by the compiler).

C is not syntax-safe because of the pre-processor :-)

Tony (on his iPod).
--

Ah, but the preprocessor is an optional tool and not part of the formal language definition! C code can use no or a different preprocessor (icky m4 preprocessed C perhaps being the worst i've seen).  But as shap said earlier, that message was intended to be a joke...albeit a subtle dead-pan one. 

-David Mercer