Trigraphs.

[David Collier-Brown]

In article <19345 at watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth at watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
| Let's consider the various combinations of compilers and terminals.
| Commonly, either of these can be US-ASCII, 7-bit French-ASCII (or
| some other national character set), or 8-bit IS0-ASCII.

[ case analysis elided]

| That reduces the cases that need trigraphs to those that have
| French-ASCII terminals and that also prefer to avoid using the
| national keys.

| Consider that at the moment trigraphs don't even exist outside
| the minds of the X3J11 Committee, and decide how many people
| that now use the funny characters and are going to switch to
| using trigraphs.

  Ok, can someone quote the approximate reasoning behind the
consideration of trigraphs?  
  As Ray has made a good case against the problem's existance, I
therefor wonder 
	1) if some "outside" body has dictated that the standard
committee "solve" it[1]  or 
	2) if the committee merely misestimated the significance of
the problem.

--dave c-b
[1] Suggested without proof earlier in the discussion, source not
    recorded.
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.  {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers Ltd.,  | "His Majesty made you a major 
 350 Steelcase Road,   |  because he believed you would 
 Markham, Ontario.     |  know when not to obey his orders"