Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+
From: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Nameclashing in Lattice 4.0.. ARGH!
Message-ID: <0Wg-n-y00UoNE7e0VU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 88 03:45:14 GMT
References: <718@kuling.UUCP> <719@kuling.UUCP>,
	<3981@cbmvax.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 25
In-Reply-To: <3981@cbmvax.UUCP>

> *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 9-Jun-88 Re: Nameclashing in Lattice..*
> *Randell Jesup@cbmvax.UUC (458)*

> >Darn! I meant "entry"...

>       If you read K&R, it specifies that the identifier "entry" is reserved,
> though as far as I know there has never been a definition as to what it should
> do.  So Lattice is correct in flagging it as incorrect.

If Lattice is trying to be ANSI-compatible, it is incorrect in flagging it as
incorrect.  From Kernighan and Ritchie, Second Edition, page 259:

        "New keywords (void, const, volatile, signed, enum) are
         introduced.  The stillborn entry keyword is withdrawn."

The new K&R is written around draft-proposed ANSI, and it is a step up from the
old book.

                        --M


Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University
ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu                     BITNET: rainwalker@drycas

"if you ain't ill it'll fix your car"