On 5/26/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No sarcasm. If you've clashes, the linker will tell you. But if you
make everything static, you may using the same name for different
things without noticing, and this *may* be confusing when reading
the code.
That's a very reasonable expl
On 5/26/06, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wow. this is just about the most offensive thing i've ever seen on list. that's
not to say it should be censored ;).
I wrongly interpreted Marco's statement, and shot him badly.
all this from someone who spends time pointing finding ho
On 5/26/06, Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And Marco was explaining why he (and probably other OpenBSD devs)
don't use static: name clashes. static makes things more difficult to
debug, and having 50 different static functions named the same thing
could get pretty confusing in large pr
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I thought you were being sarcastic, and I was wrong. I strongly apologize.
--
DG
On 5/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Either because:
1. there are debugging requirements. Static functions do not expose entry
points.
Even for user-level code?
2. most developers don't consider limiting global namespace pollution as
this doesn't frequently hinder dev
On 5/25/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
how many parse_config functions do you think spamd needs?
It was an example. The point is: is there a reason for not using
static on functions with internal linkage? There's at least one reason
to use static: name clashes.
--
DG
On 5/25/06, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because it'll clash. Clashing is good.
I'm pretty sure you would be more successfull on a humor TV show as a
clown than wasting people time and bandwith with stupid statements
like that. And I don't mind if you are a OpenBSD developer,
con
Lately I've been reading OpenBSD code, both user-level and kernel-level,
and I find it very clean and well organized. 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 larg
8 matches
Mail list logo
