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