Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!haddock!karl From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: The \c escape Message-ID: <4753@haddock.ISC.COM> Date: 25 Jun 88 00:43:50 GMT References: <8806220649.AA01761@jade.berkeley.edu> <313@sdrc.UUCP> Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston Lines: 19 In article <313@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@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@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint