Original message from Diego Giagio [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > ... > I have a concern, thought: why most applications don't use the 'static' > keyword for > functions with internal linkage ? Wouldn't that avoid function name clashes > when > developing large programs?
Either because: 1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry points. 2. most developers don't consider limiting global namespace pollution as this doesn't frequently hinder development. Consider being concerned about how many names are in the global namespace the programmatic equivalent to flossing. As an aside, note in C++ that the keyword "static" is even less in vogue than it was in C given its overuse within the language definition. "static" has at least five distinct meaning based upon its context: 1. "static" global instances -- no public linkage for names are created in object files. 2. "static" automatic variables within functions -- " 3. "static" functions -- " 4. "static" members within class definitions -- class variables of which one instance is shared across all instances of the class. 5. "static" member functions -- functions with no knowledge of individual class instances other than whatever static members which may be defined. There may be a sixth, but I haven't verified it lately. This may only be a compiler implementation issue: 6.? "static" constants -- may force the compiler to allocated memory for the instance. This isn't to say that there are equivalents elsewhere in the language which obviate all uses of "static", but namespaces sidesteps some of these issues. Jim
