Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
From: Schauble@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Length of external names
Message-ID: <5229@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 6-Nov-86 02:46:06 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5229
Posted: Thu Nov  6 02:46:06 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Nov-86 08:55:45 EST
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 34

A couple of months back, I was involved in a fairly active tirade about
the length of external names in the C standard.  I believed then, and
still do, the the proposed standard's length of 8 characters in
inadequate.  This minimum will become a maximum for anyone wanting to
write portable code.

Now, I don't want to reopen the argument here.  I am very curious,
however, as to why that limit was established.  The only reason I can
come up with is to accommodate limitations in somebody's linker.  But
who?

The last machine I am aware of that had a short name restriction in the
linker was Honeywell's GCOS line.  They now have a new linker with a 500
character limit.

I have reason to suspect that there are no current machines and
operating systems with a very short limit.  Reason being the the COBOL
standard requires 30 character names, and that forced most manufacturers
to update their linkers.

So, I am asking for information.  Are there any current production
machines and operating systems with a linker that will not accept 30
character external names?

By current production I mean one that is actively supported by new
software, such that one could reasonably expect it to get an ANSI C
compiler.

Please reply directly to me.  I will post results in two weeks.  If you
know of such a machine, please provide me my counterexample.

          Thanks,
          Paul
          Schauble at MIT-Multics.ARPS