Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> In a sensibly designed language, the user wouldn't create names in the
> same namespace where the standard library function names are.

That would be nice, but then you get the flip side of library functions
being more special than what the user can write.  That defeats one of the
things you said you liked about C, such as being able to create your own low
level functions (like PUTC or whatever) that are called by higher level
standard library functions like PRINTF.

None of the mainstream languages I've used had a reserved namespace for
standard library functions.  In fact, C is unusual with its notion of
standard library functions.  Some operating systems take care to use special
naming for their routines that are easily avoided by the user, but
unfortunately Unix and Windows are not among them.  The standard C library
routines and Unix routines are particularly bad in this regard.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist