Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdchema.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdchema!jwp From: jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: 6 char externs and the ANSI standard Message-ID: <256@sdchema.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Oct-84 22:11:57 EDT Article-I.D.: sdchema.256 Posted: Mon Oct 15 22:11:57 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 09:58:55 EDT References: <4095@tekecs.UUCP> <1802@pegasus.UUCP> Reply-To: jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego Lines: 42 Tony L. Hansen writes [in part]: > ... anytime you set a minimum like that it's going to be followed in new > compilers/linkers as well as the cranky old linkers that won't change > to keep pace with the world. That's exactly correct. Bad money drives out good money. Or as with milk: There's a minimum standard for butter fat content milk must meet for it to be marketed as "whole" milk. So what do producers do? They strip *all* the butter fat from milk, then add back in just enough to meet the standard. > ... my position that the 6 character/mono-case limit should be a SUBSET of > the standard rather than having the standard be the minimum case. Make the > standard something sensible and then recognize those sub-standard compilers > for what they are. This is far and away the most rational comment on this subject I've seen. The rest of Mr Hansen's comments are worth noting, also - see 1802@pegasus.UUCP if you don't remember them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on other people's comments: > ... Ansi is not proposing limiting variable names to 6 charaters, they are > just saying they should be unique in 6 charaters... Whatever length and case (or lack thereof) is chosen, *all* characters should be significant. Talk about ways of promoting subtle, mind destroying bugs... > ... The ANSI C standard ... will allow extensions. The standard is simply > to specify what a program must be like if it hopes to be 100% portable ... It seems to me the standard should specify what a compiler must be able to accept if it is to be considered a standard C compiler. Otherwise, it is a substandard one, and see Tony Hansen's remarks quoted above. > ... implementors are not discouraged from adding to the language ... Thus one achieves portability? I would much rather see a language defined that we can live with without "extensions" (i.e., "unportable constructs"). John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego {decvax,sdcsvax}!sdchema!jwp