Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: _BitInt(N) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 11:01:50 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 38 Message-ID: <86ldj3tvq9.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <10dajlh$ko3c$1@dont-email.me> <10g1et7$2bmus$1@dont-email.me> <10g1j7h$2deh9$1@dont-email.me> <10g1qq9$2f8lb$4@dont-email.me> <10g28gm$2mf9s$1@dont-email.me> <10g2f2d$2oufq$1@dont-email.me> <10g2m3v$2s5sa$1@dont-email.me> <10g53au$3onvh$1@dont-email.me> <10g58pa$3r273$1@dont-email.me> <10g6bpp$60nh$1@dont-email.me> <10g6qek$bfrp$1@dont-email.me> <10g742m$ev96$2@dont-email.me> <10g779l$h980$1@dont-email.me> <10g7aci$icq7$1@dont-email.me> <10g7hm2$lpsu$1@dont-email.me> <87y0nm7yru.fsf@example.invalid> <10gl6jq$3htol$9@dont-email.me> <10gm4l9$2302c$1@dont-email.me> <10gmhn1$10oh3$1@solani.org> <87o6og31e7.fsf@example.invalid> <10gosdg$33du5$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 19:01:52 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b66f75cc16331490dd39d06d7ef9603"; logging-data="2231266"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ATS+JAAMR0QJseSa9gXkdSZDRhkOHqHU=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZpNe7baY4cX/9HIEJ1VKaXOn4Sk= sha1:KfTctliNsmd4pZxFGD00bpfztpQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:395821 Richard Heathfield writes: > On 02/12/2025 23:33, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Philipp Klaus Krause writes: >> >>> Am 02.12.25 um 08:31 schrieb David Brown: >>> >>>> But in days gone by if anyone ever needed to use trigraphs for C >>>> programming, then I am sure they would happily switch to a >>>> word-based language given half a chance. I find "{ }" nicer than >>>> "begin end", but I'd pick "begin end" over "??< ??>" any day! >>> >>> AFAIK, there never was a real user of trigraphs (unless you count >>> compiler test suites). AFAIK for all real-world use digraphs were >>> sufficient. >> >> There have been actual uses of trigraphs. Richard Heathfield posted >> this on this newsgroup in 2010 : >> >> Yes, they are still needed, for example in some mainframe >> environments. They make the code look astoundingly ugly, but >> they do at least make it work. It is not uncommon for "normal" >> C code to be written and tested on PCs, then run through >> a conversion program to replace monographs with trigraphs >> where required before transfer to the mainframe for final >> testing. That way, you get the readability where it matters, >> and the usability where /that/ matters. > > Nostalgia ain't what it used to be, but yes, I did indeed write that, > and yes, such workarounds are still used. > >> But trigraphs have been removed in C23. > > Then so, in some mainframe environments, have curly braces. I suppose > their fix will be to not adopt C23. Curly braces are still available by means of the digraphs <% and %>.