Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: RE: Re: great quote about the "C" language Message-ID: <241@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 20:48:23 EST Article-I.D.: denelcor.241 Posted: Thu Dec 8 20:48:23 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Dec-83 22:12:22 EST References: <2293@utah-cs.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO Lines: 25 ************************************************************************** >For everyday programming, the Lisp oblist is *all* reserved words - >most Lisps have some very obscure function names; mung those and you're >without an interpreter. In Franz, try the global var "base" - it's >lots of fun! BTW, I consider C library function names to be reserved >words. Perhaps they don't fit somebody's formal definition of "reserved >word", but messin' with 'em is dangerous, and that's what counts. I've been concerned for some time now about where the "language" leaves off and the "library" takes over. Especially since Ada came on the scene; in Ada (as I understand it), the programmer is encouraged to think of not only public but private library routines as extensions to the language (at least in some sense--they're also very sensitive about any "extensions" to Ada.) As a language developer, this strikes me as an extremely powerful and useful paradigm but the formal descriptions haven't kept up. I would like to see what other ideas there might be out there about this. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. !denelcor!neal