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