How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper?
Barry Shein
bzs at world.std.com
Sat May 11 11:04:05 AEST 1991
From: barmar at think.com (Barry Margolin)
>This sounds much fancier than the standard #include file mechanism. Most
>#include facilities don't have any way to specify portions of files, only
>whole files.
Sure they do:
File A:
#define USESTUFF
#include <junk.h>
junk.h:
...whatever...
#ifdef USESTUFF
...more whatever...
#endif /*USESTUFF*/
I know, sounds silly, but who knows once the lawyers start making
claims. That it's not slick doesn't deny its existence. It's fully
general. But I don't think this is the issue.
>I suspect they're describing something from DCA (IBM's Document Content
>Architecture, I think) or DISOSS (their DCA-based OA system).
I agree.
I doubt C compilers would be in trouble as that's definitely prior
art. If anything I think that's the point here.
In fact, the C '#include' is almost an exact clone of PL/1's
'%include' facility (note the name similarity!)
Which IBM might own.
Hmm.
(Anyone know if the PL/1 pre-processor was part of the original VDL
specification? It should be fairly easy to look up. Do other PL/1
compilers generally implement this pre-processor? Is any of this
relevant to the issue?)
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs at world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
More information about the Comp.org.usenix
mailing list