Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: internal linkage for member functions?
Message-ID: <10628@alice.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 90 16:04:43 GMT
References: <14373@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <PCG.90Mar25214938@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 35

In article <PCG.90Mar25214938@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk>, pcg@rupert.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

> Given my all important and previous advice (:->) that member functions
> be *always* defined _after_ the class definition (in which only member
> functions declarations should appear), and that the storage class be
> *always* explicit in C++, you can write for example:

> 	struct c { int i; int m(int = 0); };

> to *declare* 'm' and

> 	static int m (auto int j) { return this->i*j; }

> to *define* it with stoarage class static, that is internal linkage.

Indeed.

But the second `m' you have defined here has nothing to do with
the first.  In fact, if you try compiling the example above,
you will find that cfront says

	error: ``this'' used in non class context

On the other hand, if you make it plain that the second `m'
is an attempt to define the first:

	struct c { int i; int m(int = 0); };
 	static int c::m (auto int j) { return this->i*j; }

you will find that indeed you cannot say `static' for a member function:

	error: static specified for qualified name m()
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com