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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!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: <251@sdchema.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 01:06:20 EDT Article-I.D.: sdchema.251 Posted: Tue Oct 9 01:06:20 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 04:52:40 EDT References: <4095@tekecs.UUCP> Reply-To: jwp@sdchema.UUCP (John Pierce) Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego Lines: 25 Summary: In article <4095@tekecs.UUCP> joemu@tekecs.UUCP writes: > Here's another hot issue in the committee. Should the minimum character > limit for external symbols be longer than 6 chars, case indistinct? > ... > I know this topic has been discussed before in this forum, but the > committee really needs to get a clear sense of the user community on how > acceptable this limitation is. It isn't acceptable at all. Though I don't *really* care. I've got tools than that, and I'm loyal enough to the people who pay me that I will use those tools if they're necessary to reduce the production and maintenance costs of what I do. If that means that what I write doesn't meet the standard, that's too bad. That doesn't mean I'll deliberately violate it; it just means that no time will be wasted on worrying about it. I doubt we will ever retreat to the 11/40 and "pre-phototypsetter" compiler we started with. And you're right. It has been discussed here before. Endlessly. I don't understand why we're going through it again, since it's basically a waste of disk space and transmission time. The committee will make whatever decision is necessary so that everyone can say "My favorite toy, the Blah C Compiler, meets the ANSII standard - so buy it", without having to spend any money making it (and its associated linker) into a decent product. John Pierce {decvax,sdcsvax}!sdchema!jwp