On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 09:39:16PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:45 PM 11/21/00 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > >
> > > >Well, it would (IMHO) make more sense to have
> > > >perl6_parse_script (I do tend to follow
> > > >{subsystem,verb,object} naming...)
> > >
> > > Or Perl$parse_script, but that's a matter of taste, I suppose. :)
> >
> >Given that it isn't a valid C identifier, yes... Unless you're
> >using VAXC or DECC of course, which was your point I assume ;-)
>
> Odd. The Dec C docs don't mention it as a problem, and both Dec C on VMS
> and GCC on a linux box take it without complaint. They might've slipped it
> in as valid in the final ANSI standard or something. (I can't dig up my
> ANSI K&R to check, unfortunately)
Crank up the warnings to strict ANSI and even DEC C moans. At least on
Digital UNIX it does.
$ cat x.c
static int foo$bar = 42;
$ cc -c -std1 x.c
cc: Warning: x.c, line 1: Extension: A '$' was encountered in an identifier.
static int foo$bar = 42;
-----------^
$
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
