Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!ncifcrf!lhc!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: How to write Trigraph like character sequences in a string
Message-ID: <16386@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 11 Jun 91 14:51:24 GMT
References: <676362343.52@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <676362343.52@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Sean.Eric.Fagan@f98.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>And the only "standard" way to *get* trigraphs is to use the 'c89' command.
>Since ANSI C *can't* specify how to get full conformance, having something
>like
>	filter_trigraphs file.c | pre_processor | check_syntax | compile
>is a perfectly "valid" way to get a conforming compiler.  Unless, as noted
>previously, you're on a POSIX-compliant system, in which case you will be
>able to use the aforementioned c89 command.

Each (standard) conforming implementation is FULLY conforming.
It is true that the vendors might make it possible for users to obtain
partially functional (non-standard) behavior if they do not invoke the
conforming implementation, but that's just implementation garbage, not
relevant to the discussion of standard conformance.

By the way, POSIX.2's "c89" should have been called "cc"...