Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: The \c escape
Message-ID: <8125@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 19 Jun 88 02:59:44 GMT
References: <4604@haddock.ISC.COM> <5907@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <5907@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, papowell@attila.uucp (Patrick Powell) writes:
> In article <4604@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
> >Add new escape sequence \c.
> This is FAR too reasonable, clean, clear, simple, trivial to implement,
> does not break existing systems, etc., to even make it out the door.

Don't be such an ass.  X3J11 is not in the business of adding features
to C just because they fit.  For a proposal such as \c to be adopted,
it would be necessary to show why it is important enough to justify
making the language fatter.  Some good examples of a significant
problem that \c addresses would have helped the odds of its adoption
considerably.  Now it is too late to be mucking around except to
remedy serious technical errors.  Does \c do that?