Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- From: mwojcik@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Wojcik)
- Date: 11 Apr 2006 14:02:37 GMT
In article <443ba09c.512134160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rlb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Bos) writes:
mwojcik@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Wojcik) wrote:
That, to me, is a more significant feature of nested functions than
their limited scope, which I imagine is what would justify yet
another application of "static".
Yes, but re-using "static" for purposes only tangentially related to
those it had before is Traditional.
True - Seebs' Principle probably applies to extensions as well as
revisions of the standard. (And there's also Dennis' story of
prenatal new-keyword trauma...)
Though to be honest I think reusing any of the existing keywords was
a bad idea; if they want to invent a new language, they should invent
a new language.
I agree. But that would not be as kewl as claiming you've written a C
compiler.
I suppose not. There does seem to be (or at least have been) a fair
bit of "133t ski11z" sentiment among the GCC contributors. Could it
be that Stallman encouraged that?
--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As always, great patience and a clean work area are required for fulfillment
of this diversion, and it should not be attempted if either are compromised.
-- Chris Ware
.
- References:
- FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- From: Bill Pursell
- Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- From: Richard Bos
- Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- From: Richard Bos
- FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- Prev by Date: LISP generalized lists in C
- Next by Date: How to encrypt a password
- Previous by thread: Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
- Next by thread: char string
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|