Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: Using identifiers with more than 7 chars. #$%@
Message-ID: <47@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 06:26:46 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.47
Posted: Fri Mar  7 06:26:46 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 09:06:50 EST
References: <526@dsi1.UUCP> <29@gilbbs.UUCP> <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Distribution: net
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 56
Summary: gronch

In article <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes:
> In article <29@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes:
> >or some other form of UNIX!  If you are going to post software with major
> >system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the
> >summary, damn it!
> 
> Sigh. Here we go again. First things first: you should *not* use long names
> that differ in the last few characters. Put the differences in the *front*
> of the name, where they are easy to find. That makes for much more readable
> code.
> 
> Now, back to the flames (ain't they fun!).
> 
> Using long names is *not* a system dependency, it's a compiler depenency. My
> Lattice/Amiga compiler swallows 31-char names, no problem. How should I tag
> those? What about using voids, as some compilers don't support those at all?
> How about void *func(), as 4.2BSD doesn't handle it? Function prototyping
> (once again, Lattice/Amiga has it)? Structure assignment and friends? Should
> we tag *all* of those?
> 
> Finally, System V now supports flexnames, and Ultrix has always had it. If
> you're not running 4.2BSD or System V, it's your own fault (if you've got a
> vendor still selling 4.1, System III or v7, you should change vendors!). If
> your vendor hasn't upgraded to the latest version of System V, you should go
> shout at them. If you're on a micro, you probably need to buy/should have
> bought a better C compiler. But those are usually the compilers that are
> going to have more serious problems than lack of long names.
> 
> 	<mike




   ***SHIT***   Mike, what I *SHOULD* have done, it appears, is spend $50K or
more on a bigger, better system!  There are 2 (count them two) versions of
UNIX (XENIX) available for the hardware I can *AFFORD*:  2.3a (an unGhodly
meld of V7 and SysIII), and SYS III.   There is 1 (count it, one!) C compiler
available for this system/OS combination.   


    I humbly apologize to the you, and to the net, for not having bothered
to spend more money that I'll make in the next 4 years on my system!


    Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!

-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)