Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Help wanted on avoiding name space pollution
Message-ID: <8008@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 2 Jun 88 19:24:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.8008
References: <8079@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <8079@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>	But Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.13 of the Standard tell only
>	what identifiers are reserved; they do not say that the
>	described identifiers are the only identifiers that may be
>	reserved.

There wouldn't be much point in specifying what names are reserved
unless the remaining names were unreserved.  I think the committee
felt that that implication was clear enough.

I also fail to see how an implementation could qualify as conforming
if it usurped unreserved names.  It certainly could NOT "accept any
strictly conforming program" as required in section 1.7.