On Aug 24, 2018, at 3:02 AM, arnold(a)skeeve.com wrote: My two cents, ... K&R 1 did not have void or structure assignment. Those came later, although I'm not sure when. They may have been mentioned in an appendix; my copy isn't handy to check. At what point did each struct become its own namespace? I think around the time of K&R1. The troff rewrite was later, circa '81 or so. Definitely NOT in the V6/V7 timeframe. Arnold

Arnold, I caution on absolutes. Typesetter C predates V7. It was for V6 but a release of ditroff may have been after V7. - do remember something like that in the early 80s. What I do not remember the order of which compilers. The driver for writing ditroff was the Labs getting an APS5 typesetter which was in the late 70s. And (I???m less) certain here, I think Bourne once told me they used the APS5 for the V7 manual set masters because it supported more fonts. Btw. The whole reason why typesetter C had a compiler included was the v6 compiler was not insufficient (primarily missing support for stdio) but V7 was not. That said the dates and some of the ordering are fuzzy in my mind at this point. I???m trying to use other things that I have absolute dates for and trying line them up. We had V5, quickly upgraded the V6, then TS and finally V7. I left in late Spring ???79. That order I know is right and Ted was the reason we had TS as he brought it with him in 76 / 77. (Same for the proofs for K&R1). We got typesetter C at some point I thought before Ted brought TS but that???s fuzzy. Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not quite. > On Aug 24, 2018, at 3:02 AM, arnold(a)skeeve.com wrote: > > My two cents, ... > >> From: Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> >> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:30:19 -0400 >> To: ron(a)ronnatalie.com >> Subject: Re: [TUHS] C++ / Kernel >> >> Yep. Im pretty sure I remember void being in typesetter C also. IIRC the >> differences between that version of Dennis???s compiler and what was included >> in 7th Edition was mostly in the libraries ie stdio was first released as >> part of the typesetter compiler but it was still a work in progress. > > K&R 1 did not have void or structure assignment. Those came later, > although I'm not sure when. They may have been mentioned in an > appendix; my copy isn't handy to check. > > At what point did each struct become its own namespace? I think > around the time of K&R1. > >> From: Clem cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> >> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:52:24 -0400 >> To: Noel Chiappa <jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu> >> Subject: Re: [TUHS] C++ / Kernel >> >> ... >> >> The big changes to the language were between 6th Edition and Typesetter >> which were done in concert if not to support Brian???s work on the troff >> rewrite. Plus the first draft of book was being written around then also. > > The troff rewrite was later, circa '81 or so. Definitely NOT in the > V6/V7 timeframe. > > Arnold

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote: Ok, so that was clearly the first ditroff. Typesetter C *must have been the original troff release* which was separate from V6; but I don't remember what all was in the release. Looking at the v6 distribution tape I have, the assembler versions of roff and nroff was there; but not troff. V7 clearly shows the original troff in the sources. The order I remember is this ... V5, V6, Patches, Typesetter C, TS, V7 ... although TS and Typesetter might be switched but I know we got Typesetter C before we got V7. Ted brought TS to us (in EE) and I thought that had the new compiler. CS got TS from us in EE. But somebody at CMU had wanted troff because we had the XGP in CS that we drive with Scribe (I want to say that was EE but I don't remember who was involved). So I have memory of somebody hacking on the compiler at some point. The POR (which if ever came to bear at CMU was after I left) was some type of hacking on troff to support the XGP. Given the time Aharon points out, it might have been direct support it or it might have been something like vcat - I was not involved. Klone might remember more of that. Clearly from the time, ditroff did not yet exist. The more I think about it, Brian K actually might know some of the story. Scribe was Brian Reid's PhD Thesis and Brian K was on Reid's committee at the time and I'm guessing could somehow have been mixed up. FWIW: Compiler hacking at CMU stands out in my mind because of the 11/40e had CSAV/CRET instructions. The CS versions of the compilers generated code using that, because they had 11/40e with CMU WCS options. The rest of us in EE, BioMed, Mellon Institute etc were running on 11/34's or 11/34A which could not handle those binaries (no WCS). So I personally spent time tracking the CS versions of the compiler and bringing things to EE, trying to keep thing clean. That was one of my jobs at the time. That's fairly sure of the order, because we had Typesetter C at CMU in the Summer '78 when were we negotiating the 'university' commercial V7 license with Al Arms [which I was personally mixed up -- the finally ruling/agreement was license one system as a commercial system at the $20K fee and a university, could then use UNIX for back office and commercial style uses like Industry. Al did not require the $5K second CPU stuff from the Universities, if they got a single $20K license; everyone was happy - details off list or another thread if you want them; although I will say CMU was first in early '79, followed by Case in late 1979]. So again, I try to date by things I know are fixed in time and then work from there. As Dan points out the cross pollination was high in those days and it was not just from the labs to the Universities. For instance, Ted took fsck back to Summit & MH, as well as a number of other tools (although I think that one had the longest reach). Noel has mentioned similar stories from MIT. Chesson brought all the networking stuff from UoI and we saw some of it in datakit (an earlier version of his mpx code for V7 he did as a grad student). You get the idea.... Clem