At 1:15 PM +1100 on 6/24/99, spierings wrote:
>> >I
>> >really can't imagine anyone wanting object names longer than 65536
>>characters
>> >=P...
>>
>> Well, no reason to not allow it. We'd have to add code everywhere to make
>> sure the length is not exceeded. And trust me, it's a pain in the a**.
>
>How about the time the lexical analyzer wastes scanning a 65536 char
>object name?
If you want to type 65536 character object names in your scripts, that's
your problem. And the analyzer should be able to handle it with little
stress.
>And how unreadable your code will be with lots of 65536 char variables?
More importantl, we must worry about the person -- or people -- who wil
take adavantage of this limit and write one gigabyte-long variables. We
must come to the defence of their keyboard! It's not fair to make it go
through _that_!
Or we could jus trealize that no one is going to do that -- or use a 64K
one, either.
>And the time it would take to write a script if all your variable names
>were 65536
>chars long?
Which is why no one will do it.
>
>I don't think it will be a feature I am likely to use anyway. 256 chars is
>plenty
>for me.
But there is no reason to limit it to that.
