C, and what it is for

[Ed Nather]

In article <8578 at smoke.ARPA>, gwyn at smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> >In article <1988Sep22.163950.13700 at utzoo.uucp>, henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >> Sensible standards committees focus on standardizing existing, well-proven
> >> practice, not on redesigning the language to try to make everybody happy.
> 
> X3J11 will have to decide whether or not trigraphs, some alternative
> similar facility, or no such facility will be in the next draft of the
> proposed ANS for C.  There are pending public review comments on this.

If they follow Henry's excellent advice, "no such facility" is the only
choice.  There is no "well-proven practice" to standardize.

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{backbones}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather at astro.as.utexas.edu