Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The free() thing and function names
Message-ID: <11085@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 17 Sep 89 00:01:23 GMT
References: <1989Sep14.022055.5961@twwells.com> <841@uniol.UUCP> <11073@smoke.BRL.MIL> <29562@news.Think.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <29562@news.Think.COM> barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes:
>I thought implementation-provided libraries were required to use an
>internal, underscore-prefixed name for all the standard library
>functions, precisely to allow users to override the normal names.

No, in fact (strictly conforming) programs are PROHIBITED from
attempting to override the standard library function names.

>I remember these rules being discussed quite a bit a few years ago.
>Did they not make it into the pANS?

What made it into the pANS is what I said.  It was certainly discussed
in detail by X3J11 and that's what they decided.  I fully support this
decision.  There are good reasons for this constraint.