[net.sources] C names

shawn@mit-eddie.UUCP (Shawn McKay) (05/21/85)

If you wish to make such large changes, why don't you change the name
of the language? What berkeley folks use IS NOT C as is documented
by the K&R book. Which I would expect to be the ONLY reasonable standard
to be used to define the 'C programming language'. Perhaps it's time
for the 'D' programming language. I'll leave out what I think D should
stand for.

			Yours In Hacking,
			  -- Shawn
p.s.:
Flamers reply at own risk.

Uucp: mit-eddie!shawn
Arpa: Shawn at Mit-Mc

jqj@cornell.UUCP (J Q Johnson) (05/22/85)

What is C?  K&R?  Harbison&Steele?  The ANSI standard?

	From: shawn@mit-eddie.UUCP (Shawn McKay)
	Subject: C names
	Date: 21 May 85 19:43:52 GMT

	... why don't you change the name
	of the language? What berkeley folks use IS NOT C as is documented
	by the K&R book.

Neither, of course, is any other commonly used C implementation.

Seems to me we've been over this ground too often before.

fouts@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Marty) (05/23/85)

     Err, Um, Excuse me.

     The reason why I got off the Unix-Wizards and Info-Unix mailing
lists was to avoid wading through multiple pointless "my horse is
deader than yours" sorts of religous discussions.

     I would like to ask the participants in this discussion of the
proper number of characters in a variable name to please consider
continuing it on another discussion group than net.sources

     Thank you,

Marty

----------

rcj@burl.UUCP (R. Curtis Jackson) (05/24/85)

> What is C?  K&R?  Harbison&Steele?  The ANSI standard?
> 
> 	From: shawn@mit-eddie.UUCP (Shawn McKay)
> 	Subject: C names
> 	Date: 21 May 85 19:43:52 GMT
> 
> 	... why don't you change the name
> 	of the language? What berkeley folks use IS NOT C as is documented
> 	by the K&R book.
> 
> Neither, of course, is any other commonly used C implementation.
> 
> Seems to me we've been over this ground too often before.

I just came back from C-day at Murray Hill yesterday, and many
of my fears about the new ANSI standardization have been allayed;
they've stuck very closely to K&R in most respects.  More I cannot
say because of proprietary rules (I don't know how much of the day
was proprietary but I'll feel better assuming it was all such).

I'm hoping that the ANSI standard will be adopted without a lot of
fuss - it'll be nice to have a (good) standard.
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj