Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Trigraphs: Is sed sufficient?
Message-ID: <10477@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 30 Jun 89 21:40:33 GMT
References: <225800190@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <2029@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <1989Jun27.164758.1379@utzoo.uucp> <CLINE.89Jun30154443@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <CLINE.89Jun30154443@suntan.ece.clarkson.edu> cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes:
>Ah TriGraphs.  Henry's comment about using "sed" is interesting.  But is it
>true that trigraphs change the contents of strings literals??.

If you think about what trigraphs are intended for, the answer is obvious.
Yes, trigraph replacement is the first thing done after mapping the
physical source file characters to the internal source character set.
Note that the physical-to-internal mapping provides another opportunity
for handling local character set problems, and indeed is where I recommend
that it be done whenever possible.