| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 767.1 |  | GEMEVN::FAIMAN | Wandrer, du M�der, du bist zu Haus | Mon Apr 07 1997 09:32 | 9 | 
|  | May I suggest that MANGLED and TRUNCATED would be better?
UPPERCASE and LOWERCASE might be either adjectival forms or verbs; but AS_IS is
clearly adjectival, so I think the new keywords ought to be as well.
That is, you have uppercase names, lowercase names, or "as-is" names; and you
have mangled names or truncated names.
	-Neil
 | 
| 767.2 |  | DECC::VOGEL |  | Mon Apr 07 1997 09:46 | 10 | 
|  |     
    Re .1 - Neil,
    
>May I suggest that MANGLED and TRUNCATED would be better?
    Yes.  Thanks.
    
    	Ed
    
    
 | 
| 767.3 |  | DECCXX::COLEEN |  | Thu Apr 10 1997 16:58 | 19 | 
|  | 
I'd like to propose the keyword "UNIQUELY_SHORTENED"  (AHH!) instead
of "MANGLED".  In C++, function names are already "mangled".  "Mangled"
in DEC C++ means: Add type encoding to the name to support overloading.
We have a demangler tool that will give you the signature of a name,
for example:
%demangle
f__1CXi
(yields) C::f(int)
%
Calling these CRC'ed names "MANGLED" is confusing.
(NOTE: Please think of a better name than "UNIQUELY_SHORTENED").
Thanks,
Coleen
 | 
| 767.4 | Other suggestions | DECC::VOGEL |  | Thu Apr 10 1997 20:52 | 6 | 
|  |     
    Kevin Harris has suggested CRC_SHORTENED.  I would also consider
    ENCODED or CRC_ENCODED or CRC_CODED.
    
    					Ed
    
 | 
| 767.5 |  | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Fri Apr 11 1997 15:14 | 6 | 
|  |     CRC* doesn't stick too well with me since that is just exposing how
    you shortned them.  Most people don't care if you used a CRC or a
    crystal ball to figure out the new name.  ENCODED seems OK as would
    ENCRYPTED.
    
    				-John
 | 
| 767.6 | They're not encrypted | CXXC::REPETE | Rich Peterson 381-1802 ZKO2-3/N30 | Thu Apr 17 1997 16:22 | 11 | 
|  | I think encrypted is clearly inappropriate - the idea is to make the
name unique without making it any more cryptic than absolutely necessary.
To that end, I also think that CRC_SHORTENED CRC_ENCODED is preferable
to ENCODED.  While you might (and did) say that CRC_ just exposes the
algorithm, in practice I think it also conveys the purpose of the
option in a small number of characters.  The intent is not to encrypt
(security-related) or encode (to carry additional information that wasn't
already present), but to assure uniqueness when part of the original
information is removed.  I think CRC_SHORTENED captures that the best,
with CRC_ENCODED a close second.
 | 
| 767.7 |  | GEMEVN::FAIMAN | Wandrer, du M�der, du bist zu Haus | Fri Apr 18 1997 09:01 | 1 | 
|  | Why not SHORTENED?
 | 
| 767.8 |  | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Tue Apr 22 1997 08:50 | 4 | 
|  | Don't use "ENCRYPTED" - first of all, it's inaccurate - second, it will raise
red flags all over the place with people concerned with export controls.
			Steve
 | 
| 767.9 |  | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Tue Apr 22 1997 16:05 | 5 | 
|  |     Yeah, I guess encrpyted isn't good.  However, everything I see CRC
    I think of the large book of chemical/mathematical/etc. formula
    and data that is in my bookcase at home.
    
    				-John
 | 
| 767.10 |  | CXXC::REINIG | This too shall change | Tue Apr 22 1997 18:15 | 3 | 
|  |     Does any other C compiler do this?  What names do they use.
    
                                        August
 | 
| 767.11 |  | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Wed Apr 23 1997 15:24 | 3 | 
|  | ENCODED works for me.
			Steve
 | 
| 767.12 | Why not? | CXXC::REPETE | Rich Peterson 381-1802 ZKO2-3/N30 | Tue Apr 29 1997 16:42 | 23 | 
|  | RE .7:
> Why not SHORTENED?
Good question.  My first reaction would be that it might imply
truncation.  But since TRUNCATED is the alternative/default,
I guess it should be pretty clear that the shortening would
involve something other than truncation.  I think SHORTENED
is the clear winner.
RE .9:
Regarding the Chemical Rubber Company's famous handbook, I
might be inclined to agree except that I encountered CRC
with the intended meaning in an IBM manual on 9-track tape
formats before my first encounter with the presentation of
all physical knowledge in tabular form.
RE .10:
Regarding other compilers, I'm not aware of any that have this
kind of problem.  VMS has the shortest limit of any of the
platforms our customers use.
 |