Digraph proposal from Denmark

[Bruce Blodgett]

Sorry if you get two copies of this, but the first mailing bounced
because I replied to ncegatimbuk rather than to ncegatimbuk.cray.com.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Rex and Keld,

I don't want to get dragged into the relative merits of whether the
entire proposal should be adopted.  I just have a couple of
constructive comments for it:

Rex Jaeschke writes:
    > From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <uunet!dkuug.dk!keld>
    > To: wg14adkuug.dk
    > Subject: (SC22WG14.188) revised danish alternate trigraph proposal
    > 
    > 1.1 Iso646 macros
    > 
    >      #define  bitor   |
    >      #define  or      ||

Given that "BITOR" has been chosen for "bitwise or", would it be wise
to express "logical or" as something along the lines of "OR ELSE"
(exact spelling to be left as an exercise for the proposal submittor)?

    >      #define  bitand  &
    >      #define  and     &&

Given that "BITAND" has been chosen for "bitwise and", would it be wise
to express "logical and" as something along the lines of "AND THEN"
(exact spelling to be left as an exercise for the proposal submittor)?

Bruce Blodgett
blodgettaapollo.hp.com
(508) 436-4037
------- End of forwarded message -------