On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:58:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:12:24AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > So technically, what we have here is two bugs. One against OpenMotif > > for depending on X internal symbols (symbols with mandatorily > > undefined behavior, at that). And one against X upstream for code > > with undefined behavior.
> I don't see why why a private function shouldn't be able to do whatever > it wants. 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. 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. 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. 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! :) cheers p.s. note that I removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the followup, because I'm not discussing, nor interested in, what openmotif is doing. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
