Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Reserved identifiers, was Re: Thoughts on moving towards ANSI
Message-ID: <9642@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 10 Feb 89 16:15:16 GMT
References: <795@n8emr.UUCP> <9621@smoke.BRL.MIL> <23551@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <23551@watmath.waterloo.edu> jagardner@watmath.waterloo.edu (Jim Gardner) writes:
>In article <9621@smoke.BRL.MIL> Gwyn@BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) writes:
>>Note also that the "pascal" keyword of APW C should be changed to
>>something like _pascal_ and then for compatibility the APW-specific
>Shouldn't that be __pascal, or _Pascal? Or has ANSI decided to simplify
>the reserved identifier rules as an editorial change.

My copy of the proposed standard is buried as a result of moving to a
new office, so I couldn't look this up.  Thus the "something like".
Of course I recommend following the actual standard specification.