Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Forward Referencing of Static Variables OK?
Message-ID: <773@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 12:23:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.773
Posted: Fri Oct  4 12:23:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:20:31 EDT
References: <365@tekcbi.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 29
Summary: 

In article <365@tekcbi.UUCP> jimpr@tekcbi.UUCP writes:
>A C compiler we are using was designed in such a way that the following
>code would not compile:
>
>	extern int thing;	/* don't know yet if thing is static or not */
		.
		.
		.
>	static int thing = 0;	/* now we know that it's static */
>
>Their contention that not allowing this type of forward referencing of
>static variables is consistent with "The C Programming Language", (K. & P.).
>
(Various other compilers are mentioned)
>They all make "thing" static (ie, local to the file "thing" is defined in).
>
>What say you all?  Is there any language in K & P which would dissuade them?
>Thanks!
>
	Well, I cannot find anything explicit in K&R, but the ANSI
Draft Standard fairly clearly indicates that this *is*(or will be)
legal. So any compiler which wants to conform th the std will have
to accept this construct.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa