Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16498 > unrolled thread

trigraphs, yecch

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  trigraphs, yecch cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2012-01-31 15:55 +0000
    Re: trigraphs, yecch pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-31 11:05 -0500
      Re: trigraphs, yecch Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-31 16:47 +0000
        Re: trigraphs, yecch cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2012-01-31 17:21 +0000
          Re: trigraphs, yecch James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-31 12:26 -0500
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-31 11:40 -0600
            Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 15:22 -0800
              Re: trigraphs, yecch "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-02-01 01:09 +0000
                Re: trigraphs, yecch James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-31 22:21 -0500
                Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 21:25 -0800
              Re: trigraphs, yecch "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-01-31 23:40 -0600
                Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 22:19 -0800
                  Re: trigraphs, yecch James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-01 08:27 -0500
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-31 17:47 +0000
          Re: trigraphs, yecch ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 09:41 -0800
          Re: trigraphs, yecch pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-31 13:17 -0500
    Re: trigraphs, yecch blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-01-31 09:56 -0800
    Re: trigraphs, yecch Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2012-01-31 13:55 -0800
      Re: trigraphs, yecch Harald van Dijk <haraldvdijk@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 14:02 -0800
        Re: trigraphs, yecch blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-01-31 14:06 -0800
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Harald van Dijk <haraldvdijk@gmail.com> - 2012-01-31 15:13 -0800
          Re: trigraphs, yecch "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-01-31 23:44 -0600
            Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 22:20 -0800
              Re: trigraphs, yecch James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-31 22:56 -0800
                Re: trigraphs, yecch Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-01 12:15 +0000
    Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 15:27 -0800
      Re: trigraphs, yecch Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-01-31 17:01 -0800
        Re: trigraphs, yecch Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-31 19:50 -0800
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-01 10:31 -0800
        Re: trigraphs, yecch James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-31 23:17 -0500
          Re: trigraphs, yecch "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-02-01 10:39 +0100
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-01 17:20 +0000
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-01 11:11 -0800
        Re: trigraphs, yecch "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-01-31 23:50 -0600
          Re: trigraphs, yecch ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2012-02-01 11:56 -0600
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-01 11:12 -0800
          Re: trigraphs, yecch Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-01 13:29 -0600
            Re: trigraphs, yecch blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-01 11:35 -0800
              Re: trigraphs, yecch Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-01 19:59 +0000
                Re: trigraphs, yecch blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-02-01 12:41 -0800
                  Re: trigraphs, yecch Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-01 22:55 +0000
              Re: trigraphs, yecch Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-01 14:44 -0600
                Re: trigraphs, yecch Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-01 22:55 +0000
          Re: trigraphs, yecch "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-02 14:19 -0800
            Re: trigraphs, yecch Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-02-06 20:40 -0800
              Re: trigraphs, yecch "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-02-07 11:40 +0100
        Re: trigraphs, yecch jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-02 14:15 +0000
    Re: trigraphs, yecch cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2012-02-01 16:52 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#16624

On 2012-02-01, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-02-01, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 31-Jan-12 23:50, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> or relegate this to a PRAGMA...  before trigraphs would be recognized
>>>>> by the compiler.
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't use a #pragma to enable trigraphs since # is one of the
>>>> characters that may require a trigraph.  See above.
>>>
>>> You could use a %:pragma to enable trigraphs.
>>
>> Even better:
>>
>> ??=pragma
>
> You couldn't use ??=pragma to enable trigraphs because ??= is a
> trigraph.  See above.

So you understand the point perfectly!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16614

On 01-Feb-12 13:35, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> 
>> On 31-Jan-12 23:50, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> or relegate this to a PRAGMA...  before trigraphs would be recognized
>>> by the compiler.
>>
>> You couldn't use a #pragma to enable trigraphs since # is one of the
>> characters that may require a trigraph.  See above.
> 
> You could use a %:pragma to enable trigraphs.

Or, to avoid creating yet another bizarre sequence of symbols, you could
create a special exception for "??=pragma trigraph", without recognizing
any other trigraphs by default.

However, that still seems like a hack; it seems more straightforward to
allow implementations to optionally ignore trigraphs via some external
means, which is the status quo anyway.

S


-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16623

On 2012-02-01, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 01-Feb-12 13:35, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On 31-Jan-12 23:50, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> or relegate this to a PRAGMA...  before trigraphs would be recognized
>>>> by the compiler.
>>>
>>> You couldn't use a #pragma to enable trigraphs since # is one of the
>>> characters that may require a trigraph.  See above.
>> 
>> You could use a %:pragma to enable trigraphs.
>
> Or, to avoid creating yet another bizarre sequence of symbols, you could
> create a special exception for "??=pragma trigraph", without recognizing
> any other trigraphs by default.

No special exception! ??=pragma trigraph enables trigraphs, but ??= is not
recognized until trigraphs are enabled.

That is the perfect solution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16789

On Feb 1, 5:50 am, "Charles Richmond" <netn...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> So just *remove* trigraphs from the *next* C standard.  Or require the
> preprocessor symbol "__TRIGRAPH_IMPLEMENTED__" to be defined, or relegate
> this to a PRAGMA...  before trigraphs would be recognized by the compiler.
> Make it *extra* hard for the ordinary C programmer to step on this land
> mine.

A change that would silently break existing code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16814

"christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:

> On Feb 1, 5:50 am, "Charles Richmond" <netn...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> So just *remove* trigraphs from the *next* C standard.  Or require the
>> preprocessor symbol "__TRIGRAPH_IMPLEMENTED__" to be defined, or relegate
>> this to a PRAGMA...  before trigraphs would be recognized by the compiler.
>> Make it *extra* hard for the ordinary C programmer to step on this land
>> mine.
>
> A change that would silently break existing code.

How much existing code uses trigraphs?

-- Patrick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16831

Patrick Scheible wrote:
> "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> On Feb 1, 5:50 am, "Charles Richmond" <netn...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So just *remove* trigraphs from the *next* C standard. Or require
>>> the preprocessor symbol "__TRIGRAPH_IMPLEMENTED__" to be defined,
>>> or relegate this to a PRAGMA... before trigraphs would be
>>> recognized by the compiler. Make it *extra* hard for the ordinary C
>>> programmer to step on this land mine.
>> 
>> A change that would silently break existing code.
> 
> How much existing code uses trigraphs?

If there were none, they wouldn't have been added to the standard, I guess.

Bye, Jojo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16639

In article <86aa53e59d.fsf@zipcon.net>,
Patrick Scheible  <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
>Has the C standards committee been flamed enough for trigraphs?

I don't think so.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/BurningMan-picture.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHy3IgqlHc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16594

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:55:41 GMT, cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:

>
>The other day I wanted to put three successive question marks in a
>string.  Frex, "(???).%s.%s".  My trusty antique gcc compiler
>converted the last two '?'s into a ']' along with a warning that it
>was doing a trigraph conversion.
>
>Now, me, I know from nothing about trigraphs - never used them, hope
>never to use them - so I was caught by surprise.  My elderly copy of
>K&R described them but I didn't see anything about getting around
>them.
>
>So.  How is one supposed to get three successive question marks into a
>string?
>

I want to thank everyone who answered.  It was all quite interesting
and I learned some things that I heretofore didn't knew.  In the end I
decided that I really didn't need to have three questionmarks in a row
- one would do just as well.  Given the alternatives, I felt "don't do
that" to be the most attractive.

    

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web