🚀 go-pugleaf

mod.std.c Digest            Mon, 18 Feb 85       Volume 3 : Issue   5 

Today's Topics:
                   Comments on Standard, Section B
                      long external identifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 85 12:23:04 est
From: cbosgd!plus5!hokey
Subject: Comments on Standard, Section B
To: cbosgd!std-c

In article <707@homxa.UUCP> Ken Arnold writes:
>	External identifiers beginning with a leading underscore, and
>	all identifiers beginning with two underscores, are reserved
>	for use by the implementation and must not be used by a
>	program, except to specify implementation-defined values.
>
>Some over-zealous implementor will try and make this a compiler-
>enforced option unless otherwise instructed.  I suggest the following
>addition to the end of this paragraph.
>
>	This must not be enforced by the compiler.

What happens when that same over-zealous implementor makes it a loader-
enforced option?

[ A loader implementation is not covered by the standard, right? - Mod - ]

Where can the rest of us obtain copies of the proposed Standard?

[ I'll try to get an answer. - Mod - ]

Not to turn things into a "vote", but \e would be swell...

Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 85 15:20:18 CST (Sun)
From: cbosgd!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
Subject: long external identifiers
To: cbosgd!std-c

Henry Spencer writes:

>  Where is the win in mandating long identifiers?

It's in not incurring the hatred of everybody in 1995 who has to deal with
programs written to comply with six-character linker limits, even though
such linkers have long since fallen by the wayside.  Many of the proposed
solutions (e.g., hashing) allow writing long identifiers on systems with
6-character limits.

	Geoff Kuenning
	Unix Consultant
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff

[ This is a very old subject.  Alternatives have been discussed in quite
  some detail.  I expect to receive contributions on this subject that
  add something new to the discussion.  - Mod - ]

------------------------------

End of mod.std.c Digest - Mon, 18 Feb 85 20:46:06 EST
******************************

USENET -> posting only through cbosgd!std-c.
ARPA -> replies to cbosgd!std-c@BERKELEY.ARPA (NOT to INFO-C)
In all cases, you may also reply to the author(s) above.