The \c escape

[Karl Heuer]

In article <313 at sdrc.UUCP> scjones at sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:
>The problem is that if we make any substantive changes (i.e. anything but
>editorial corrections), we are REQUIRED by ANSI rules to have another 2
>month public review which would delay the final standard by about 6 months.

This is why I suspect that my \c only has a chance if there's some *other*
substantive change in the third review.  But (since it failed the second
review, despite the absence of such a delta-cost) even if this happens, it
still needs further support.  Most of what I've heard so far is "Yes! That's a
good idea!"; what I need is something that will convince X3J11 that the lack
of this functionality is a serious technical flaw.

And quit arguing about what it should be called.  The Committee can spell it
any way they want for all I care.  I chose \c because the suppress-terminator
feature is similar to \c in USG echo.  If the two uses are to have separate
spellings (which is how I originally conceived it), I'd go with \c and \z.  Or
\c and \x(NNN).

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