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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1997/12/29 Message-ID: <883407142snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 311079348 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> <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> X-Mail2News-User: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 883418649 10323 fred genesis.demon.co.uk Organization: none Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk 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: 1997-12-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34A7B45C.403B@min.net> jdporter@min.net "John Porter" writes: >Robert Dewar wrote: >> OK, so your compiler can compile memfoo without compiling. Wunderbar! But >> that does NOT mean that you can actually go ahead and call a routine memfoo >> if the standard forbids it. To do so would be incompetent programming. > >So now a "language" is not defined by the compiler -- or even by the >preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it... They may very well define a language but they certainly don't define the C language. >I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'! You can't declare/define memfoo as an identifier with external linkage if you are writing C code. That is because the standard permits compilers to use it for their own purposes. If you want to use it with your particular compiler because you "know" it works then nobody is going to stop you. However any real guarantees you have that it will work are tenuous at best and all bets are off from a portability perspective. It may be more obvious when you consider functions like strdup() or strupr(). The same considerations apply except that some compilers are actually known to define these functions. Perhaps the nastiest header in this respect is which reserves identifiers starting with is and to (followed by a lowercase letter). So names like issue and token are reserved. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------