Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:7746 comp.lang.c:29085
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!phigate!ehviea!leo
From: leo@ehviea.ine.philips.nl (Leo de Wit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Type Qualifier [volatile]
Keywords: Qualifier, joke
Message-ID: <803@ehviea.ine.philips.nl>
Date: 25 May 90 11:50:17 GMT
References: <4275@infmx.UUCP> <1990May22.124936.5727@aucs.uucp>
Reply-To: leo@ehviea.UUCP (Leo de Wit)
Organization: Philips I&E Eindhoven
Lines: 15

In article <1990May22.124936.5727@aucs.uucp> 880716a@aucs.UUCP (Dave Astels) writes:
|In article <4275@infmx.UUCP> briand@infmx.UUCP (brian donat) writes:
|>    When would a programmer want to explicitly use the 
|>		'auto' storage class? 
|
|I've often wondered that myself.  If you find out, let me know.

Today's tendency for J. Random Hacker is to prefer 'bike' storage class
to 'auto' storage class; using additional keywords like push(-bike) to
explicitly request stack allocation, or mountain (bike) for huge
stacks.  The last one is not supported very well on Intel architectures.

:-).

    Leo.