Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: 6 char externs and the ANSI standard
Message-ID: <4668@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Nov-84 13:24:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4668
Posted: Thu Nov 22 13:24:08 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 13:24:08 EST
References: <120@ihnp3.UUCP>, <4176@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 21

> My personal preference is to set the internal and external identifier
> limits to be identical so the poor slob that has to maintain the code
> doesn't have to try to keep the two separate. The current standard
> states that internal identifiers are significant to 31 chars, case
> distinct, and I feel externals should follow the same rules.

As I've mentioned before, the problem is backward compatibility with
systems that *cannot* provide more than 6 chars monocase for external
identifiers (barring kludges like remapping).  The current draft of
the standard says that identifiers are theoretically unlimited in
length, but that implementations may impose limitations, with worst
allowed limits of 31 dualcase for internals, 6 monocase for externals.
Do you really suggest that implementations on brain-damaged systems should
limit internal identifiers as well to 6 chars monocase?  I understand
the desire for consistency, but if I can't have long identifiers for
externals, I at least want them for internals.  Note that you can't
use the preprocessor to do remapping if it doesn't take long identifiers
(although the desirability of preprocessor remapping is another story...).
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry