Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site geowhiz.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!geowhiz!karsh From: karsh@geowhiz.UUCP (Bruce Karsh) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: ANSI standard and cpp Message-ID: <137@geowhiz.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 09:51:05 EDT Article-I.D.: geowhiz.137 Posted: Mon Oct 8 09:51:05 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 19:51:28 EDT References: <12717@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: UW Madison, Geology Dept. Lines: 20 > From: Jeff Hanes (VLD/VMB)> Are you asking for a vote? If so, here's mine: > 6 char externs: I vote that I never be forced into six character variable names again. I had enough of that when I used to program in FORTRAN. If manufacturers made the mistake of limiting their linkers to 6 character names, then it's their mistake and they'll just have to do something about it. Eventually they'll have to change anyways. Does anybody think 6 char names are adequate for the future? Suppose some manufacturers had a 2 character limit for external names. Would it make sense to define C with 2 character external names? (We'd really be compatible with Basic then (:-) ). Lets leave stone age baggage like 6 char variable names behind us. Bruce Karsh UW Madison, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics