Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2601 comp.misc:7564 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.misc Subject: Re: Coding standards (was Re: Programmer productivity) Keywords: One function per file? Message-ID: <9185@hoptoad.uucp> Date: 5 Dec 89 02:33:41 GMT References: <34796@regenmeister.uucp> <2226@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <128179@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <546@sagpd1.UUCP> <4727@netcom.UUCP> <4290@pegasus.ATT.COM> Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco Lines: 14 In article <4290@pegasus.ATT.COM> dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: >There IS one argument, in some cases a compelling one, for "one function >per file". In general, linkers aren't smart enough to link just >PART of a binary file (.OBJ or .o), when that file contains a function >needed by the link. WHAT? What year is this? I don't think I've ever used a linker that didn't eliminate unused routines. Any such linker would be seriously brain damaged. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Everything that gives us pleasure gives us pain to measure it by." -- The Residents, GOD IN THREE PERSONS Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com