dan@haddock.UUCP (07/13/84)
#R:utzoo:-401300:haddock:12400012:000:640 haddock!dan Jul 11 17:51:00 1984 Re long global ids: if the ANSI committee required them, that would just mean that everyone with stone-age linkers would have to say "ANSI Standard C, except that global ids can only be 6 chars long" instead of being able to say just "ANSI Standard C". I for one consider identifier length important enough that I think it would be a good idea if every short-id compiler ad had to say so, up front. That kind of disclaimer might also increase the incentive to improve the linker. Re variable arguments: I too think that '...' would be infinitely better than a trailing comma. Making a common syntax error legal is the wrong way to go.
DBrown@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (07/17/84)
This message is empty.
jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/02/84)
#R:utzoo:-401300:ism780b:25500008:000:664 ism780b!jim Jul 17 21:33:00 1984 > It would seem that "extern int foo()" would be the best way to declare > a function with only variable arguments, although doing this would > prevent the same syntax from being used at a later date to declare > a function with no arguements. It seems to me it would make plenty of sense if "extern int foo()" meant "foo takes an totally unknown (arbitrary) number of variables of totally unknown (arbitrary) type", which it does anyway, attempts at finding other syntax to represent the same thing notwithstanding, and if "extern int foo(void)" (a hack, but a clear one) were used to mean "foo takes no arguments". -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)