Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: instability in Berkeley versus AT&T releases
Message-ID: <117@desint.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Jul-85 17:12:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: desint.117
Posted: Sun Jul 28 17:12:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 01:30:51 EDT
References: <964@daemon.UUCP> <46@brl-tgr.ARPA> <82@ucbcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: SAH Consulting, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 16

In article <82@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>
>Oh sure, we can't have functions called "index" and "rindex". That's definitely
>not up to commercial standards -- we have to have them called "strchr" and
>"strrchr"... Fixing bugs is fine, but it's not usually necessary to make
>the stuff incompatible to make it work. *

"Index" is a poor name for a subroutine in the library for the same reason
that "test" is a poor name for a program in /bin.  Since it's easy to handle
old programs with either the -D switch of cc or with any reasonable editor,
what's the problem?  A lot of future users will be saved some nasty debugging.
The most it ever costs me is a makefile edit and a second make.
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff