osd7@homxa.UUCP (Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz) (02/19/85)
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.