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."