Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: 6 char externs and the ANSI standard Message-ID: <1602@nsc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 18:34:49 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.1602 Posted: Sun Oct 14 18:34:49 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Oct-84 04:51:32 EDT References: <12792@sri-arpa.UUCP> <454@voder.UUCP> <1570@nsc.UUCP> <337@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: The Warlocks Cave, Castrovalva Lines: 22 > Wait a minute. First of all, doesn't VMS support 31-character names? > But more important, no one would have to change ALL their software to > meet a new standard. They have lots of options: don't support it (or > the "full" version); write a new linker that can be used with (probably > only with) the C compiler; come up with funny hash/name-translation > schemes, etc. Ok, my apologies to DEC, I used a bad example-- I cut my teeth on RSTS way back when and it shows... The example doesn't invalidate the problem, though-- many manufactures have significant bases of software that would have to be 'fixed' to support the standard. There are situations is generating standards when a less than perfect LCD must be used because making the standard 'right' would cause a number of people to have to deviate from the standard or ignore it completely. I'd much rather be able to write software to the standard that IS standard than write software to the standard that is going to run into deviations from the standard and break. Let manufacturers extend the standard, not restrict it. -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA How about 'reason for living?'