Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!nusdhub!rwhite
From: rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MAJOR ANSI C FLAW (my opinion, of course)
Message-ID: <256@nusdhub.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 17:41:28 EST
Article-I.D.: nusdhub.256
Posted: Fri Nov  6 17:41:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 23:16:57 EST
References: <10065@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: National University, San Diego
Lines: 59
Summary: A quick example.... [of ponuding my head against the wall...]

In article <10065@brl-adm.ARPA>, vis!greg@bass.nosc.MIL writes:
> My understanding is that X3J11's restriction on external names will
> cause the writers and standardizers of C bindings for libraries and
> packages to use much less mnemonic names than they would wish.  Given
> all of the fancy graphics, database, window managing, mathematics,
> etc. libraries and packages we're accumulating, this restriction will
> significantly reduce the clarity of our code

I would like to point to a windowing package which is fully compliant.
These are actual external function names from the curses package
included wiht our C Language Utilities set.

slk_noutrefresh();
restartterm();
*boolfnames[];
garbagedlines();
...

	Our system implements external identifiers which are dual case 30+
characters long.  This is compliant with the X3J11 minimum requirement
of 6 single case external names.

You, and others, are repeatedly useing the word "restriction" which
is incorrect.  The proposed standard does not require the identifiers
be any particular length, nor that they be unique in 6 characters.
What it _does_ say is that a compiler must supply _at least_ 6
characters to it's linking enviornment, with a warning that this
MINIMUM will most likeley be INCREASED to a LARGER MINIMUM at a
later date.

The only way to _not_ be compliant is to write a compiler which would
only supply _4_ mono-case characters to it's linking environment.

The extreemly low MINIMUM has been retained so as to allow the
older compilers to still claim compliance.  Sort of a warning
period.

The standard does not contain a MAXIMUM in any way [on this issue].

The crevate to this is that _if_ you want 100% portability as of
this instant <according to the standard> you will need to only use
6 mono-case characters, BUT WE ALL ALREADY KNEW THIS DIDN'T WE?

In summary:
	YES, your Microsoft C [with 40+ dual-case externals] is compliant.
	YES, your local-hack C compiler with 128 dual-case is compliant.
	YES, your VAX C compiler with only 6 mono_case is compliant.
	BUT that VAX C compiler probably won't be netx year!!!!!

	Just write code that fits your most limiting "required"
environment and stop worrying.  ALL your old code will work in
whatever later expansion is done to the standard as far as "will
it compile and link correctly?"  If it is a debugger that is
limited to debugging 6-mono-case externals, you might as well
re-write it now and beat the rush!!

Rob.

Disclaimer:  "I don't care any more...."  - P. Collins.