From derek@knosof.uucp Mon Dec 13 21:42:30 1993 Received: from eros.Britain.EU.net by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA05307 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 13 Dec 1993 23:20:47 +0100 Received: from pyra.co.uk by eros.britain.eu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 13 Dec 1993 22:22:08 +0000 Received: by knosof.UUCP (anilla/UUCP-Project/rel-1.0/11-05-86) id AA08635; Mon, 13 Dec 93 21:42:30 GMT Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 21:42:30 GMT From: derek@knosof.uucp (Derek M Jones) Message-Id: <9312132142.AA08635@knosof.UUCP> To: wg15@pyra.co.uk Subject: Alternative spellings for tokens X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 All, Document WG15 N416, Invariant 646 support for POSIX-2. For those of you not familiar with the latest digraph proposals in C and C++ see the table below: { } [ ] # ## C <% %> <: :> %: %:%: C++ <% %> <: :> %% %%%% POSIX.2 proposal (. (: %% Also suggests <% %> <: :> In the case of C the proposal is part of an Addendum to the Standard. The main portion of the document deals with library functions to support Multi-Byte Extensions. Both the UK and the Netherlands are voting NO, with the comments that they will vote YES if the Danish proposals are removed (we are also hopring that other countries will also vote NO {US tag decided to vote YES by 11-5}). In the case of C++ I believe that although the alternative spellings for some tokens have been part of the draft for nearly 2 years no compiler vendor has yet implemented them. The C Addendum is likely to make it to formal standard status before C++. Assuming the proposal is not voted down C++ have to decide what to do about the incompatibility over #. Perhaps WG15 might like to wait for the dust to settle before deciding how to proceed with this issue. derek jones Convenor UK C panel