[openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: "Andrew Bachmann" <shatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:20:17 -0800 PST
"Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Andrew Bachmann" <shatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This seems like the winning suggestion to me. Just another wacky C
> > thing.
> > This is why I don't do drivers I guess. (heh)
>
> That's not wacky, that's a useful feature. It's even something that's
> missing (a bug in the specs as I would see it) in C++; you cannot
> define a class only locally - it's always visible from the outside
> until you strip the symbols manually.
This is not quite correct, I can have two files separately define the
same class with no qualifiers and have no problems linking-- or so
it seemed in my test case. Personally I think that declaring things
to be static is the backwards way, [instead of explicitly granting
visibility] but my personal opinion doesn't count for much in this
arena. :-)
Andrew
- Follow-Ups:
- [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: Nathan Whitehorn
- References:
- [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: Axel Dörfler
Other related posts:
- » [openbeos] -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- » [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: Nathan Whitehorn
- [openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: Axel Dörfler