Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!alberta!jeff
From: jeff@alberta.UUCP (C. J. Sampson)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: length of external names
Message-ID: <385@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 01:33:12 EST
Article-I.D.: alberta.385
Posted: Thu Jan  3 01:33:12 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:32:31 EST
References: <233@gumby.UUCP> <3194@alice.UUCP>, <236@gumby.UUCP> <4847@utzoo.UUCP>, <380@alberta.UUCP> <455@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: his Personal Computer
Lines: 17

> > [ Names are not long enough, etc. etc. ]
>
> But if we enforce a minimum size then they will be portable only
> within the systems that support that size.  I think "implementation-defined"
> is the way to go.  At least for now.

The idea is that all standard systems will support a minimum size that is 
reasonably large.  "implementaton-defined" sizes will make C programs no more
portable then they are now in that respect.  What is the point of a standard
if it does not make programs written to the standard more portable?  I still
say that we should have minimum 32 character externs.  Porting ~500 lines an
hour just because of this is very expensive as well as very stupid.
=====================================================================
	Curt Sampson		ihnp4!alberta!jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"It looked like something resembling white marble, which was probably
 what is was: something resembling white marble."