From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 2000 18:16:13 +0100
Paul> s/@<:@/[/g s/@:>@/]/g s/@S|@/$/g s/@%:@/#/g
Can we consider these guys are unlikely enough to avoid using @@?
No. E.g. grep's configure.in says:
LIBOBJS=`echo $LIBOBJS|sed 's/\.o /\$U.o /g;s/\.o$/\$U.o/'`
and bison's aclocal.m4 says:
echo timestamp > `echo <<$>>am_file | sed -e 's%:.*%%' -e
's%[^/]*$%%'`stamp-h$am_indx
and there are instances of 'S|' and '%:' in there.
I well remember, in a thread on the metric system, you said (almost
word by word), that `we will probably come to metric system, but
we, American, are never going to come to trigraphs' :) :).
But these aren't trigraphs; they're quadrigraphs. :-)
I wouldn't have been so opposed to trigraphs if they hadn't been so
likely to occur in real code. The above four quadrigraphs are
unlikely to occur in real autoconf code. I just checked a wide
variety of source code using autoconf, and found no instances of these
quadrigraphs in any of them. I found lots of instances of the
unadorned digraphs, though.
