Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!pikes!slate!jedelen
From: jedelen@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Jeff Edelen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C common practice. (was: low level optimization)
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.202752.27176@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 20:27:52 GMT
References: <15904@smoke.brl.mil> <22354@lanl.gov> <1991Apr24.155719.10182@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Colorado School of Mines
Lines: 16

In article <1991Apr24.155719.10182@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <22354@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>>On the contrary.  Putting each C procedure into a separate file _is_
>>common practice.  It is promoted as "good" style by C gurus...
>
>Jim, you've gone round the bend.  Either cite references for this or shut up.

Based on the complete text of Jim's article, I doubt he meant what I'm about
to propose, but...

If you regard a "procedure" as a _collection_ of functions to perform a
given task, his statement makes sense.  Of course, this observation can
at best give rise to bickering about terminology, but we see so very
little of that around here as it is :-)

-jeff