Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: length of external names Message-ID: <4857@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 13:18:16 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.4857 Posted: Wed Jan 2 13:18:16 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Jan-85 13:18:16 EST References: <233@gumby.UUCP> <3194@alice.UUCP>, <236@gumby.UUCP> <4847@utzoo.UUCP>, <380@alberta.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 40 > > The current draft says that the length limit (if any) and treatment > > of case in external identifiers are "implementation-defined", which > > means that implementors can do things as they wish but must document > > their decisions. Also, the length limit may not be shorter than 6. > > Gads! When are they going to figure out that 6 or 8 characters is *not* > enough. I spent three hours porting ogre to an Altos 586 running some > ancient verson of Xenix and most of that was spent changing function > names because I had only 7 signifcant characters. I think that the standard > should enforce a minimum of 32 characters. We will make programs more > portable and readable. Oh lord, not this again... This topic was discussed *to death* a few months ago. To summarize the major points that emerged: - There are many systems which are doomed to live with old, brain-damaged linker formats. Manufacturers have too big a commitment to the old formats to change, and their users have no say in the matter. It is politically vital for the acceptance of the standard that standard-conforming implementations be possible on such machines. This is regrettable but impossible to avoid. - Trying to pick a number other than 6 is silly. People who have a choice about the number can just as easily opt for no limit at all, which is clearly the right decision. People who do not have a choice about the number generally are stuck with a rather low number, typically 6. - Software which relies on long names is not fully portable, regardless of claims to the contrary. - It is generally agreed that the situation is unsatisfactory and painful. - I repeat a challenge I made at the time: if you think a mandatory bigger number is appropriate despite the problems this will cause for the more backward systems, prove your point by convincing DEC or IBM to agree with you. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry