C Builtin Funxions

[M.J.Shannon]

In article <1700010 at umn-cs.UUCP> herndon at umn-cs.UUCP writes:
>
>  I feel compelled to go on record as being VERY MUCH AGAINST
>having reserved procedure names in C.  For those of us who have
>ever written stand-alone code for PDP-11s, VAXen, ..., it is
>a simple matter, as things stand, to compile our programs,
>and then have them linked with our own versions of 'putc',
>'read', etc. stashed in stand-alone libraries.
> ...
>In addition, porting the C compiler to a different OS on the
>same machine only requires that the libraries be re-written
>(almost always).  Building those functions into the language
>implies that there will be much code for special casing those
>functions.

Nowhere is it required that the compiler have any special knowledge of the
reserved names in the library.  Yes, *some* compilers will undoubtedly have
*some* special knowledge of *some* of those names, but the ANSI spec does
*NOT* *require* the compiler to know anything about any reserved library
names.

Please, do NOT flame about statements that are not made in the spec.
There are enough statements that ARE made in the spec that may be worth
flaming about (although I hope that rational discusssion, rather than
flames, result).  If you don't have a copy of the current state of the
proposed standard, GET ONE!  I'm sure that any number of members of the
committee (many of whom read this newsgroup) can either provide the
proper procedure for obtaining it, and possibly an official copy.  (I
don't have this information, so please don't reply to me for it.  Perhaps
Larry Rosler can repost the appropriate information.)

	Marty Shannon
UUCP:	ihnp4!attunix!mjs
Phone:	+1 (201) 522 6063

Disclaimer: I speak for no one.

"If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel
-- 
	Marty Shannon
UUCP:	ihnp4!attunix!mjs
Phone:	+1 (201) 522 6063

Disclaimer: I speak for no one.

"If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel