On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Can you name a private function "errno"? No, that's a reserved name. > Can you name an private function "_x11_fooooobar"? Technically, no, > you cannot, that's a reserved name! All names that start with > underscore are reserved by the language standard. So you're conceding it's a private function, which OpenMotif must not use by definition? > Now, I freely grant that in practice, if you're careful, you'll get > away with it 999,999 times out of a million. But that doesn't make it > legal. It simply makes it relatively unimportant. It's similar to > (though MUCH safer than) code that uses "void main()", which also > tends to work in practice. If you want to take it upstream to get it changed, I strongly encourage you to. > Note that I have not filed any bug reports about this. The only > reason I even mentioned it is that Daniel was harrassing some poor > fellow who happened to mention, in passing, the fact that such > identifiers are technically forbidden. Well, Daniel was wrong, and > the original poster was right, so I quoted chapter and verse to show > that Daniel was wrong. It's not a big deal, I was just defending the > poor guy. Oh, give it a rest. I wasn't attacking him, I'm just pointing out that there is one package in the wrong, and it's not X. > And I have to say, after reading Daniel's irrelevant and incoherent > response to my post, I have a much greater understanding of why you > decided to stop working with him! :) plonk. -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature