Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbjade!mwm From: mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Newsgroups: net.sources.d Subject: Re: Using identifiers with more than 7 chars. #$%@ Message-ID: <433@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 13-Mar-86 21:50:51 EST Article-I.D.: ucbjade.433 Posted: Thu Mar 13 21:50:51 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 19:45:44 EST References: <171@desint.UUCP> <413@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> <174@desint.UUCP> Sender: network@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Distribution: net Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 42 In article <174@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >People post 4BSD-specific stuff all the time; I don't have a problem >with that. I *do* ask that they mark system dependencies as such so >that those of use who have older systems won't waste valuable time and >disk space trying to port something that won't come across. That's all >the original posting on this subject asked, too. The original poster asked (well, flamed is more like it) that people tag BSD stuff if it used long variable names. My answering flame was to point out (Grab, shake, force face into...) that BSD wasn't the only system that supported long variable names - most everybody does, nowdays. Also, there are lots of *other* things you can do that people's compilers may or may not accept (I think there are people out there that still have v6 systems. Using the photo-7 compilers, guys?), such as: bitfield, void, unsigned , structure passing/returning/assigning, and nowdays the XJ311 constructs like union initialization and function prototyping. What do we do about those? Proposed solution: For each posting, state which systems it has been tested and is known to run on. Of course, people post code that doesn't compile (for worse reasons than the long character name problem), so I don't expect any such thing to happen. >> For stock, buy Commodore-Amiga. They have a great machine, respectable >> software, a reasonable dealer network, and competent tech support people. >> None of which insures that they will survive. :-) > >Indeed. For starters, you have completely overlooked their financial >condition, not to mention the qualifications of their critical >management and engineering people. Back to the Ouija board. :-) [Time to move to net.micro. Maybe next time...] The talked the bank into giving them another year to pay things off. They are in the middle of a management shakeup, but the person who left them in this state (Pappa Jack) is gone. The engineering people are the ones who did the Amiga, bought when they bought Amiga. If they can make the loan payoff, those who bought now are gonna be in good shape. I think they will, but don't claim any better accuracy than either the Ouija board or the entrails of a hacker.