Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!gwyn@brl-vld From: gwyn%brl-vld@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: NULL vs 0 - (nf) Message-ID: <16118@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 20:50:32 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16118 Posted: Sat Jan 28 20:50:32 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Feb-84 15:38:47 EST Lines: 16 From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)I sure am glad you requested complaints about flexnames. My complaint is that a DEFINITE GUARANTEE is needed as to how many characters in the long names are checked for uniqueness. (externs probably still need to be limited to 6 chars with case ignored.) Otherwise this feature will interfere with writing portable code. For example, int xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; int xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Are these going to be guaranteed to be distinct identifiers in the new C language standard? What if there were 50 x characters? 100? It is not possible to write portable code without some guarantee about this. Another drawback to flexnames is that the portable programmer cannot use them until they are covered by the language standard. At present, C compilers often support only the 8 chars promised in the K&R book.