Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The free() thing and function names
Message-ID: <1989Sep17.044033.29687@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1989Sep14.022055.5961@twwells.com> <841@uniol.UUCP> <1989Sep15.183248.2955@utzoo.uucp> <11084@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 89 04:40:33 GMT

In article <11084@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>No, that's wrong.  All identifiers in section 4 with external linkage
>(e.g. library function names) are reserved whether or not the associated
>header is included.  It's only macros that are not reserved when the
>header is not included.  See 4.1.2.1.

I saw 4.1.2.1; in fact I spent quite some time studying it before composing
that answer.  I'm willing to concede that I was wrong, but I'm not happy
about the wording of the clauses touching on this issue; it's unfortunate
that it's too late for fixes.

(Please don't tell me that it's obvious what they mean.  Sure it's obvious,
if you already know what's intended.  If you go into it with a completely
open mind and try to find an explicit statement that definitively rules out
the wrong interpretation, it's not quite so obvious.  I'm beginning to think
that all major standards should have the equivalent of POSIX's "Weirdnix"
contest before they are cast in concrete; unless you deliberately *try* to
misconstrue the wording, it's not easy to find the places where there are
hidden assumptions.)

(The key assumption, by the way, is that all those library function names
in section 4 are really meant to be names with external linkage.  This is
hinted at but never quite explicitly said.)
-- 
"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