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