Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Weird problem with C compiler under SCO - I can't believe it! Message-ID: <1989Sep27.170304.2158@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <71@promark.UUCP> <14561@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <940@bbx.UUCP> <534@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:03:04 GMT In article <534@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >Another thing which was left out of the ANSI standard is some name space >reserved to the user. That is, some subset of names which they promise >not to snatch away in the next standard... Section 4.1.2.1 lists several classes of identifiers that are reserved, and then flatly states: "No other identifiers are reserved." That is, ALL other identifiers are explicitly promised to be available to the user. Note also 1.7: "A conformation implementation may have extensions (including additional library functions) provided they do not alter the behavior of any strictly conforming program...", with a footnote: "This implies that a conforming implementation reserves no identifiers other than those explicitly reserved in this Standard." The classes of reserved identifiers are admittedly annoyingly large, but the promise to reserve nothing else is of considerable importance. If by "the next standard" you mean a revised C standard, either the revision will be upward-compatible or not. If so, it has to preserve these promises. If not, then asking today's standard to make promises on its behalf is silly. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu