Help wanted on avoiding name space pollution

[chris at mimsy.UUCP]

-In article <8079 at elsie.UUCP> ado at elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
->But Section 4.1.2 and Section 4.1.13 of the Standard tell only
->what identifiers are reserved; they do not say that the
->described identifiers are the only identifiers that may be
->reserved.

In article <8008 at brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn at brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
-There wouldn't be much point in specifying what names are reserved
-unless the remaining names were unreserved.  I think the committee
-felt that that implication was clear enough.

Members of the committee should keep Mr. Murphy in mind.

-I also fail to see how an implementation could qualify as conforming
-if it usurped unreserved names.  It certainly could NOT "accept any
-strictly conforming program" as required in section 1.7.

This is probably the key to keeping implementors at bay.  If the standard
says that any program that avoids the described reserved identifiers (and
does not violate other constraints) is `strictly conforming', this will
suffice.  Whether the standard in fact says this is uncertain to me.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris at mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris