Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!vector!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: 31 character identifier length Summary: compiler warnings. Message-ID: <10237@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 21 Dec 88 19:56:25 GMT References: <3236@pegasus.ATT.COM> <9167@smoke.BRL.MIL> <12643@bellcore.bellcore.com> <9234@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) Organization: Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers Lines: 27 In article <9234@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes: >Although you are correct here (as per 10/88 draft), is this really what >is intended? Should it really be possible for > > ThirtyTwoCharacterFunctionName00(); > > ThirtyTwoCharacterFunctionName01(); > >to reference different functions on some *conforming* implementations and >to reference the same function on other *conforming* implementions, >without either one having to give out even a warning ... My compiler d' jour provides warning messages only if two objects exist inside the same compilation unit and don't have names unique to 31 characters. One would hope the compiler would a) use the complete identifier, or 2) complain about a multiply defined symbol, but not accept a second definition and then ignore it ... Obviously, if the names are not unique between compilation units, it ceases to be a compiler question. I seem to recall someone saying the draft made no promises about external identifiers over 7 [ 8? ] characters. You would have a problem in that situation ... -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 |"Unix doesn't have bugs, InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | Unix is a bug" UucpNet : !killer!rpp386!jfh +-- -- author forgotten --