🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1157@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes:
>In article <RICHARD.91May29092137@lambda.iesd.auc.dk> richard@iesd.auc.dk (Richard Flamsholt S0rensen) writes:
>>  puts("Too bad - it is impossible to use ??""! in a string  :-)");
>puts("In fact, there is another impossible way to use ?\?! in a string  :-)");
WARNING!  NOT:  >puts("and what about 1) \??!");  [as Mr. Weitzel said]
>puts("               2) ?""?!");
>puts("               3) ?""?""!");
>puts("               4) ??\!");

>1) DOESN'T work (some books about ANSI-C are not aware of this

Uh, thank you, some books that falsely claim to be about ANSI-C...
Anyone care to name names, so that readers can be warned to avoid them?

>2) and 3) should work OK, [...] I'm not quite sure about 4)

It works.
I have seen recommendations for:
puts("               5) ?\?!");
but maybe I like 4) better than 5).  Furthermore, 4) and 5) work at
preprocessing time, when string concatenation has not been done yet.

Just to be perverse, here are two more:
puts("               6) ???/?!");
puts("               7) ????/!");
I lied; these are not just to be perverse.  If you need trigraphs, then
you need these.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.