🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> rex@aussie.UUCP (Rex Jaeschke) writes:
>[...]
>Finally, I must apologize for my garbage test message posting this 
>last week.  I have been trying to resolve a broken link "somewhere in
>usenet" for several months now and that test message was not
>expected to get through. I intend future postings to have less 
>garbage.

No need to apologize, Rex.  It's Net.de.facto that anything marked
"test" is to be summarily ignored and forgiven the bandwidth, and
usually it is.

(Unfortunately/obviously), some of us have more (wit/ego) than
(restraint/sense), and can't pass up the opportunity to make our
(humor/immaturity) public.  I must say I am certainly (sorry/bleraugh!)
myself for cluttering this group.

That done, on to some std biz.

You mention that the  Danes are unimpressed with trigraphs, and that
the UK want the unspecified specifications to be specified to be
unspecified (and I thought I'd stopped joking...well, I have...), so, my
question is,

Just how much input have foreign countries had in the _A_NSI spec?

I'm not being chauvinistic, I just find it odd that ANSI is handling any
considerations in deference to other nations.  It seems that such things
would be better served by writing an ISO spec for C.  Consider also that
the Danish trigraph complaint is mediated by their reliance on an ISO
character set that forces them to use the dreaded things.  I realize that
it's likely that C is protected by some form of technology-export
restriction, but that raises the paradox of "why trigraph to please
foreigners if they ain't s'posed to have it?"

So, my next question is, when is the ISO C committee forming, and how
many boxtops from Kernighan and Ritchie's Sugar Coated C Structs do I
have to submit to become a member?

				--Blair
				  "...and Einstein did get the
				   creamed corn out of his hair..."