Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #41381

Re: complex declarations

Show all headers | View raw

"James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lf78hn$nat$1@dont-email.me...
> On 03/05/2014 07:56 AM, BartC wrote:
>> "Robbie Brown" <dac@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:lf74lv$s1q$1@dont-email.me...
> ...
>> But, if any of your functions are exported to another module, then you
>> will
>> need to produce prototypes for that module anyway. (Actually all C
>> functions
>> are exported unless you declare them with 'static'. You can also call
>> them
>> from elsewhere without a prototype; that's how C used to work. These days
>> prototypes for exported/imported functions are a good idea.)
>
> Note to Robbie: Bartc is primarily interested in designing his own
> language,

(Not quite true, I've been trying to avoid doing so. However....)

> and uses the term "export" to describe a feature of that
> language. This term has no well-defined meaning in C. C functions have
> external linkage unless declared 'static', in which case they have
> internal linkage.

If you define a function F in translation unit A, to be called from
translation unit B, would anyone really be completely flummoxed if I
described F as being exported from A, and imported by B?

And I tend to declare such a function F (even when writing C), with a
'global' prefix (an empty macro) in A, and with an 'extern' prefix in B.

Proper C of course prefers to use no prefix when declaring F when it is
defined in A, and no prefix either when declaring it in B, just to make it
perfectly clear what is what! With un-exported local functions needing a
'static' prefix, obviously.

-- 
Bartc

 

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-04 20:18 +0000
  Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-04 15:49 -0500
    Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-04 16:06 -0500
      Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-05 12:18 +0000
        Re: complex declarations "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-05 12:56 +0000
          Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-05 08:24 -0500
            Re: complex declarations "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-05 16:26 +0000
        Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-05 08:13 -0500
          Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-05 13:32 +0000
        Re: complex declarations Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-03-05 14:32 +0000
    Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-04 21:42 +0000
      Re: complex declarations Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-03-04 14:04 -0800
        Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-05 09:22 +0000
          Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-05 07:29 -0500
            Re: complex declarations Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-03-05 08:38 -0800
      Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-04 17:05 -0500
  Re: complex declarations Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-03-04 21:15 +0000
    Re: complex declarations "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-03-04 21:38 +0000
      Re: complex declarations Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-03-04 23:27 +0000
    Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-04 21:59 +0000
      Re: complex declarations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-03-04 17:12 -0500
      Re: complex declarations Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-03-05 00:28 +0000
        Re: complex declarations Robbie Brown <dac@nomail.invalid> - 2014-03-05 09:10 +0000
          Re: complex declarations Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-03-05 11:44 +0000

csiph-web