Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Reserving identifiers for future use.
Message-ID: <628@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 00:54:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.628
Posted: Fri Jul 27 00:54:24 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 01:34:09 EDT
References: <3822@fortune.UUCP> <8380@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 20

From earlier postings - granted, underscores don't solve the problem.  They
allow only one distinction, which is to say they divide the universe of
identifiers into two classes, and that's not enough.

I think a better solution to the problem lies along the lines of grouping
identifiers into (named) scopes.  Simula has this in a sense in the rules
for classes.  More recently, Modula provides mechanisms which allow/require
explicit declarations to get identifiers into a particular piece of code,
either without qualification or only when a specific qualifier is given.
(I'm intentionally being fuzzy; I don't want to discuss the whole business
here.  The general idea is sufficient.)  To show how this might work:  If
you know that the identifiers which are supplied by the compiler are part
of a particular set of names, you explicitly state that those names are
to be made accessible when you need them in a module.  This doesn't
completely solve the problem (since there are still possibilities for
overlap in the name space of the containers of identifiers), but it goes a
long way.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.