From: tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com   
      
   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 %>.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)