Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What's basis for draft C Standard Rationale reserved identifier claim?
Message-ID: <5914@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 30-May-87 05:06:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5914
Posted: Sat May 30 05:06:32 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 31-May-87 16:42:27 EDT
References: <7428@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <7428@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>been unable to find the place in the Standard that assures that all other
>identifiers are available to the application programmer with no fear of
>unexpected collisions.

I believe it was felt to be unnecessary (i.e. redundant),
because a standard-conforming implementation is obliged to
accept standard-conforming source and correctly implement
the virtual machine semantics, which it couldn't do in
some cases if it infringed on the programmer's name space.

How about sending this in as a (late) public comment, to
be sure that it gets addressed officially.