Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!buengc!bph From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Reserved names in ANSI C Message-ID: <3364@buengc.BU.EDU> Date: 2 Jul 89 17:41:01 GMT References: <13680@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1598@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <875@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <316@mountn.dec.com> <884@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <321@mountn.dec.com> <461@algor2.UUCP> <1989Jul1.234330.28732@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) Followup-To: comp.std.c Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. Lines: 29 In article <1989Jul1.234330.28732@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <461@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >>Whose linker was this, anyway, that we are going to spend the next two >>decades wrecking our code for? > >Any linker that supports the bare minimum for FORTRAN. There are more >such linkers in the world than you'd think. Which begs the question: how difficult is it to have standard-conforming implementations implement a linker that handles a larger name space? (Yeah, I know. C is not a linker, so the linker is beyond the scope of the standard. So, too, was once the library...) Corrollarily, ("corrollarily"? :) how hard is it to increase the external identifier size allowed by a linker? (Actually, it should have been "lemmatically," but the chronology is bass-ackwards...) >> (Couldn't the ANSI C committee have >>found a linker somewhere that was restricted to 5 characters... > >Can you say "Data General"? I knew you could! :-) Say it? I can SEE it, if I walk downstairs. --Blair "Although it's been a long time since the DG has seen mobile electrons, apparently..."