Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!osu-eddie!lum
From: lum@osu-eddie.UUCP (Lum Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Supplementary standards (Re: ANSI C -- non-required features.)
Message-ID: <2774@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Dec-86 17:26:03 EST
Article-I.D.: osu-eddi.2774
Posted: Tue Dec 23 17:26:03 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Dec-86 18:46:30 EST
References: <112@decvax.UUCP> <5458@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3987@watmath.UUCP> <2758@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: lum@osu-eddie.UUCP (Lum Johnson)
Organization: The Ohio State University, IRCC/CIS DEC-2060
Lines: 30
Summary: Quick clarification to head off personal animosity

In article <2758@osu-eddie.UUCP> lum@osu-eddie.UUCP (Lum Johnson) writes:
>> The committee has refused to define "\e" as the string escape sequence for
>> the ASCII character ESC on the grounds that [for implementations that] won't
>> be using ASCII .. this would be impossible .. to implement.  But [that]'s no
>> reason for not [saying] "for implementations using the ASCII character set,
>> '\e' will be the ESC character" [or defining] appropriate escapes for other
>> common character sets such as Latin 1.
>> 
> I believe that may be intentional.  Have you ever heard of the principle of
> "Equal Disadvantage"?  If we put "\e" into the standard just because it is
> obviously correct for ASCII implementations, it would be a significant
> disadvantage to vendors of alien equipment which use non-standard char sets.
> ASCII implementations would become even more interportable than they now are.
> To reduce the already fearsome disadvantage to alien vendors, it is necessary
> to mandate an uneven playing field which treats them as more equal than they
> truly are.  In other words, omissions in the standard may be (and I believe
> should be viewed as) a covert non-economic subsidy to such alien vendors.
> They will not lead to "needless" differences at all;  differences, yes, but
> needless, no, not from the viewpoint of protecting said alien vendors.

Before anyone mistakes this for a personal attack, I wish to say that this was
definitely _not_ so intended.  I am impugning the process, not the people.
I'm just PO'd that the process is failing even to mention other well-known
standards, let alone to state definitively how this standard should interact
with them, when there is no objective reason for permitting such an omission.

Lum Johnson  lum@ohio-state.arpa  ..!cbosgd!osu-eddie!lum

Enufk is enufk - that's all I can stands, I can't stands no more. - Popeye
(Corrected quote - It's funnier with "stands" instead of "takes", anyhow.)