From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java.
Date: 1997/12/30
Message-ID: <34A8C6CC.3EC74017@acm.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 311287957
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199712121931.LAA25389@sirius.infonex.com>
 <67iipp$ktj$1@darla.visi.com> <882756127snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
 <34A14C27.57C0@min.net> <67rjb3$pfb$1@brie.direct.ca>
 <34A50CAA.54AA@netup.cl> <685mee$5d4$1@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>
 <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> <883441372snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Who? Me? Organized?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu
Date: 1997-12-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> 
> In article <34A812F9.C169A703@its.cl> gschwarz@its.cl "Guillermo Schwarz" writes:
...
> >The point is, at least when I studied the good and old K&R, it didn't mention
> >
> >"reserved as identifiers with external linkage", that for me means "don't
> >touch this,
> >or trick"...
> 
> K&R2 doesn't define the language. It is an excellent book but there do seem to
> be a few things it doesn't cover properly. The index lists "reserved words"
> but that just seems to refer to keywords. Even though it was revised after
> the standard was released it seems to be based mainly on a draft standard.
...

"good and old K&R" may be K&R1, not K&R2.