Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Paul Schauble) (04/04/85)
I just got a chance to play with the new AT&T Unix PC. Apparently the optional C compiler only allows 8-character variable names. What gives? The system is supposed to be System V Unix. I was under the impression that System V allowed long names. Am I wrong about System V in general supporting long names?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/08/85)
> I just got a chance to play with the new AT&T Unix PC. Apparently the > optional C compiler only allows 8-character variable names. What gives? > The system is supposed to be System V Unix. I was under the impression > that System V allowed long names. Am I wrong about System V in general > supporting long names? "System V" is a generic term, like "Unix" (although not as vague, yet). The recent releases have long names; the old ones don't. "System V: consider it a moving target." -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
smithrd@rtp47.UUCP (Randy D. Smith) (04/09/85)
> I just got a chance to play with the new AT&T Unix PC. Apparently the > optional C compiler only allows 8-character variable names. What gives? > The system is supposed to be System V Unix. I was under the impression > that System V allowed long names. Am I wrong about System V in general > supporting long names? That feature was introduced with System V, RELEASE 2. Ask for it by name. Randy D. Smith {the known world}!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!smithrd
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (04/11/85)
> "System V: consider it a moving target."
Would you prefer that it NOT evolve?
Oh, I forgot, there hasn't been anything worthwhile since 1978.henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/14/85)
> > "System V: consider it a moving target." > > Would you prefer that it NOT evolve? > Oh, I forgot, there hasn't been anything worthwhile since 1978. Well, not very much, anyway... :-) More seriously, my original comment was motivated by amusement (and some disgust) at AT&T simultaneously pushing System V as a "standard" and continuing to change it in incompatible ways. Clearly, what AT&T really wants is that everyone should consider AT&T's *latest* offering (whatever that happens to be at any given time) to be "the standard", so that AT&T isn't hampered by having to conform to standards it doesn't set, and everybody else is. In this context, it obviously makes sense for AT&T to (a) push "System V" (whatever it is this week) as "standard", and (b) keep changing the standard. "Standardize software: buy it from AT&T." -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
david@ecr1.UUCP (David Haynes) (04/15/85)
>> "System VB: consider it a moving target." > Would you prefer that it NOT evolve? > Oh, I forgot, there hasn't been anything worthwhile sine 1978. Why does everyone seem to assume that any changes made to a product imply evolution. ? David Haynes Emerald City Research Inc. utzoo!ecrhub!ecr1!david System V: "System V: Hope you have the current manuals!"
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (04/17/85)
> More seriously, my original comment was motivated by amusement (and > some disgust) at AT&T simultaneously pushing System V as a "standard" > and continuing to change it in incompatible ways. I haven't noticed any problem tracking the evolution of the AT&T UNIX product from UNIX System III through UNIX System V Release 2 Version 2. They have been rather careful to maintain the previous system interface with each new release (there have been a couple of minor slip-ups but nothing like the changes from, say, 4.1BSD to 4.2BSD). Changes have come in the form of new additions or extensions to existing facilities, better specifications, and hidden internal improvements. The System V Interface Definition provides a controlled way to phase out obsolete facilities while maintaining a stable system interface for applications. This looks like a big win to me, whether implemented by AT&T or by other vendors.