Date:	Sun, 3 Nov 2002 08:02:52 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: LIBC 2.04 new function atoll() implementation
In-Reply-To:	<3DC3E2E5.8AA59996@yahoo.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021103080029.22669C@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, CBFalconer wrote:

> A very minor thought - no parameter gets re-evaluated, so wouldn't
> it be simpler to just define a macro?

We need a function anyway, even if we define a macro, since the Standard 
mandates that.

As for introducing a macro, I won't mind, although in this case, I don't 
think the macro is required, since I don't expect `atoll' to be used 
heavily enough to justify it.

- Raw text -