Subset C Standards / Re: Linkers - Next Frontier?

[Clay Phipps]

A two level standard seems like a good idea,
and there are many precedents for it:

    ANS FORTRAN & FORTRAN 77: 
	"Full" and "Subset" languages. 
    FIPS (a government designation) COBOL: 
	"Low", "Intermediate", "High" levels.
    ANS PL/I:
	[whatever "full PL/I" is called] and "General Subset PL/I".
    ISO Pascal:
	Levels 0 and 1 (1 is essentially level 0 + "conformant arrays").
    Ada:
	no subsetting allowed by DoD AJPO, 
	but one has been repeatedly suggested from numerous quarters.

I agree that without some specific reason to improve on six-character 
external names, some compiler people and management will either 
not bother at all, or devise some cast-in-concrete inadequate improvement.
Have you ever tried to convince management with a "just meet the spec,
we're in a hurry" attitude to let you expend the effort 
to do something better than a standard calls for ?  I have (not here, btw);
it's frustrating.  It really helps to be able to point to a standard 
of some kind.

Consider the marketing advantage in being able to advertise
your C compiler as being "full C" instead of your competitor's "subset C".
Similarly, there could be a procurement advantage that allows you
to buy a better compiler that is more expensive than "low bid".
This seems to be a really big deal with COBOL compilers,
and could be with C.

-- Clay Phipps

-- 
            { amd  hplabs!hpda  sri-unix  ucbvax!amd }          
                                                      !fortune!phipps
   { ihnp4  cbosgd  decvax!decwrl!amd  harpo  allegra}