Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ANSI draft interpretation questions
Message-ID: <11938@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 12 Jan 90 20:19:56 GMT
References: <21623@mimsy.umd.edu> <11879@smoke.BRL.MIL> <21675@mimsy.umd.edu> <11897@smoke.BRL.MIL> <21690@mimsy.umd.edu> <11907@smoke.BRL.MIL> <15618@haddock.ima.isc.com> <15620@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <15620@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>So it seems that the forces in favor of minimal pushback felt so strongly
>about it that they were even willing to leave the input stream in an unknown
>shift state!

Or perhaps failed to consider the ramifications.

This is more evidence in support of the position I espoused (that was
not adopted), that (even in a so-called "multibyte" environment)
characters should be handled everywhere as unanalyzable units, so
that a text stream getc() would return one of them.  Think how much
simpler the spec would be (and how much better) if there was no need
to be concerned about "shift states" within applications.