At 11:51 PM 11/21/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>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.
Hmm. I couldn't get it to scream on VMS, and GCC on the linux box didn't
whine even with -ansi and -Wall. Time to upgrade, I guess.
Anyway, it doesn't much matter. I'd as soon stick to the [a-zA-Z_] set for
this, regardless of what's available. (Though a semi-hidden
platform-specific prefix for things exposed outside of perl wouldn't be out
of order)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
