gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/29/89)
In article <597@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >What is not in the standard is any statement like "no future standard >library calls will have external names which ... Of course not. There is no way that this Standard can constrain future standards. The best we can do is indicate intended "Future Directions" as a guide to programmers and implementors concerning what to be wary of even though it's specified a certain way by the current Standard. But it is not the intention that any follow-on C language standard usurp more name space than we've already specifically set aside.
karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) (09/29/89)
In article <11181@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >But it is not the intention that any follow-on C language standard usurp more >name space than we've already specifically set aside. I don't know if that was the intention, but I seriously doubt that it will really work that way. It's highly probable that C-2001 will reserve at least one identifier which is currently in the user's namespace, e.g. `hypot'. Btw, I'm annoyed that the entire `is*' class was reserved; that happens to be my pet namespace for boolean variables and functions. Guess I'll make do with `is_'. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint