length of external names

[C. J. Sampson]

> > [ Names are not long enough, etc. etc. ]
>
> But if we enforce a minimum size then they will be portable only
> within the systems that support that size.  I think "implementation-defined"
> is the way to go.  At least for now.

The idea is that all standard systems will support a minimum size that is 
reasonably large.  "implementaton-defined" sizes will make C programs no more
portable then they are now in that respect.  What is the point of a standard
if it does not make programs written to the standard more portable?  I still
say that we should have minimum 32 character externs.  Porting ~500 lines an
hour just because of this is very expensive as well as very stupid.
=====================================================================
	Curt Sampson		ihnp4!alberta!jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"It looked like something resembling white marble, which was probably
 what is was: something resembling white marble."