Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: trigraphs
Summary: Let's see the bloody proposal, already!
Message-ID: <12840@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 28 Apr 89 00:30:00 GMT
References: <4623@freja.diku.dk> <12.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> <2469@ogccse.ogc.edu>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 15

In article <2469@ogccse.ogc.edu> daniels@ogccse.UUCP (Scott David Daniels) writes:
>One fact that seems not to have come out yet is that trigraphs as added
>by X3J11 were an existing scheme that was proposed for adoption, not a
>new design that simply seemed to be a good idea.

They were?  I was under the impression that X3J11 had invented them.  (In
which case they made a good argument for why the X3J11 charter generally
forbade such inventions.)

>... whereas the Danish scheme sounded like "this would be an even better...

What exactly was the Danish proposal, and in what ways is it alleged to be
better than the pANS trigraphs?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint