🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9234@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes:
>Although you are correct here (as per 10/88 draft), is this really what
>is intended?  Should it really be possible for
>
>	ThirtyTwoCharacterFunctionName00();
>
>	ThirtyTwoCharacterFunctionName01();
>
>to reference different functions on some *conforming* implementations and
>to reference the same function on other *conforming* implementions,
>without either one having to give out even a warning ...

My compiler d' jour provides warning messages only if two objects exist
inside the same compilation unit and don't have names unique to 31
characters.  One would hope the compiler would a) use the complete
identifier, or 2) complain about a multiply defined symbol, but not
accept a second definition and then ignore it ...

Obviously, if the names are not unique between compilation units, it
ceases to be a compiler question.  I seem to recall someone saying the
draft made no promises about external identifiers over 7 [ 8? ]
characters.  You would have a problem in that situation ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                        +-Quote of the Week:-------------------
VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311   Data: -6272  |"Unix doesn't have bugs,
InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US       | Unix is a bug"
UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh  +--              -- author forgotten --