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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,59d1a7436aa0f405 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-14 05:36:45 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!easynews!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Length limit for variable names in your language? Message-ID: References: <3AFE60D8.6C3282B7@my-deja.com> <9dme2e$4od$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <3AFF40AF.C7FB3D9C@uol.com.br> <9do3c2$2e$1@news.ox.ac.uk> Organization: LJK Software Date: 14 May 2001 08:36:40 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 989843804 216.44.122.34 (Mon, 14 May 2001 12:36:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:36:44 GMT Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7485 comp.lang.awk:2431 comp.lang.clarion:19206 comp.lang.java.programmer:67423 comp.lang.pl1:579 comp.lang.vrml:3237 Date: 2001-05-14T08:36:40-05:00 List-Id: In article <9do3c2$2e$1@news.ox.ac.uk>, "Edward Rosten" writes: > In article <3AFF40AF.C7FB3D9C@uol.com.br>, "Cesar Rabak" > wrote: > >> Edward Rosten wrote: >>> >>> > What this limit is for C++,Fortran,Lisp,Pascal etcetcetc ? >>> >>> According to K&R 2nd edition, C guarntees that at least the first 31 >>> characters of an internal name are significant. The standard guarntees >>> 6 monocase characters for external identifiers, minimum. >>> >>> -Ed >> >> The present standard (a.k.a. C99) changes this to: > > I was referring to the C89(?) standard. C89 compliant (or nearly) > compilers are still much more common. However things depending on > external linkage are really at the mercy of the linker and library > software opn the host system. In order to meet the Ada length requirements, the Compaq Ada compiler uses another mechanism that the linker for connections between Ada modules, using the normal linker mechanism to implement that other mechanism. Thus there is no degradation of name length between Ada modules. I presume other Ada compilers do something similar, but I am less familiar with the linking mechanisms in those cases. Supporting the full length of identifiers with all characters significant is a guarantee that is important to Ada programmers, as is portability between various implementations.