Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!indri!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: New US Rep to ISO C
Message-ID: <10143@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Apr 89 06:48:59 GMT
References: <4623@freja.diku.dk> <12.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <12.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>Considering that most of ANSI voting members are implementers and the
>whole area of trigraphs is something most of them don't care a hoot about ...

Hey, trigraphs are too an issue for implementors; they have to support
them.  (And I'm not even an implementor, at least not most of the time.)

Trigraphs are well discussed in the Rationale document, and interested
parties should refer to it to see why they were invented.  I disagree
with some of the Rationale (namely the part that implies that we expect
people to actually code using trigraphs), but basically it's on the mark.