Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Stop adding types, Let's remove Trigraphs instead!!
Message-ID: <2160@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 18:21:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2160
Posted: Mon Jun  8 18:21:57 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jun-87 01:04:38 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> <293@osupyr.UUCP> <879@eneevax.UUCP> <6603@amdahl.amdahl.com> <4051@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 14

In article <4051@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
>[Trigraphs]
>
>That may be, but they are still UGLY!  The proposed standard says that
>a conforming C implementation must be able to accept source code with
>trigraphs in it:  I would rather see it be optional, or implemented as
>a pre-processer external to the compiler itself.

Is the standard really written in such a way that trigraphs *cannot* be
implemented as a pre-processor external to the compiler itself?  I find this
hard to believe.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108