6 char externs and the ANSI standard
Henry Spencer
henry at utzoo.UUCP
Thu Oct 11 04:45:15 AEST 1984
> How can you talk about portability when you consider the large number of
> existing otherwise portable programs this would break? The standard should
> protect the large number of existing programs, and demand that implementors
> deal with it. Protecting implementors with weak linkers but screwing existing
> code is not the greatest good for the greatest number.
One of the ANSI committee's basic goals is the protection of existing
*correct* code. Note that the previous de facto standard, K&R, quite
explicitly specified an 8-character limit. Pre-ANSI code which depends
on long names is not portable, regardless of fraudulent claims to the
contrary by Berklocentric implementors.
Don't get me wrong; I am entirely in favor of long names, and I tend to
agree with the suggestion that the 6-character limit on significance of
external names should be listed as a "subset" feature. But people who
wrote long-name programs long before there was any standard along those
lines, and then had the gall to call them "portable", have no cause to
complain about portability problems.
*MOST* existing C programs were written in environments with a 7-character
limit or something similar.
--
"Yes, Virginia, there is life outside Berkeley."
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list