[openbeos] Re: -Wmissing-prototypes
- From: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathanw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:38:16 -0500
> "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. :-)
This is why mwcc is a better compiler than gcc :P
-Nathan
Other related posts:
