Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: portability
Message-ID: <9474@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 21 Jan 89 22:17:24 GMT
References: <16573@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <9419@smoke.BRL.MIL> <86097@sun.uucp> <1989Jan20.173828.7231@utzoo.uucp> <9008@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <9008@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>> > What happens to the names of routines used to implement standard library
>> > functions?  Don't these pollute the name space?  Are implementations
>> > required to work around this?
>> In a word, yes.
>In a word, no--or at least not unless the standard has changed since the
>version that prompted these words to X3J11:

In a word, yes.  Your letter was acted on during the third public review.
I summarized your issue as: "Prohibit reservation of names other than
what is specified."  The Committee response was: "This was accepted as
an editorial change to the Standard.  Wording has been added to clarify
this issue."

I gather from recent postings that the authors of unregistered letters
were not sent the official Committee responses to their issues.  We were
not really obligated to do so, but it would have been nice.  I guess the
expense was too much; I know *I* couldn't really afford to mail them.
Anybody who wants to know a specific response send me e-mail and I'll
try to look it up for you.  (I took the files off-line a while back.)