Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!hascall
From: hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Language principles
Message-ID: <591@dino.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 13 Feb 90 15:52:30 GMT
References: <1990Feb9.181942.24649@utzoo.uucp> <4721@rtech.rtech.com>
Sender: usenet@dino.cs.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State Univ. Computation Center
Lines: 29

Mike Schilling writes:
} Henry Spencer writes:
}> Chuck Phillips writes:
}>>John> I write:
}>>John>     ZERO-ONE-INFINITY:  The only reasonable numbers are zero, one, and
}>>John>        infinity.

}>>On most of the points I agree.  However, this restriction seems a bit
}>>bizarre...  Could you provide a bit more context to this? ...

}> The point of this rule, which goes back a long way, is that an arbitrary
}> limit will usually get in the way eventually.  

    Ok, let's talk C with regard to this.  Off the top of my head I can
    think of the mystic number 509, are there others?

}I also remember a suggestion that languages force symbolic names to be used 
}for constants other than zero and one, to make it harder to embed magic 
}numbers in code.  I think this was Glenford Myers's idea.

    A good idea, although I do recall seeing an such an exhortation using
    PI as the example (in case the value of PI should change! :-)

John Hascall  /  ISU Comp Ctr, Ames IA  /  hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu

p.s. Is it my imagination or are attribution lines becoming like .signature
lines (that is, overblown)?  Do we really need:

In article <180 bytes of crap> so-and-so "127 bytes of personal name" writes: