Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Float Double Parameters; extern/static scope
Message-ID: <1286@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Apr-86 16:28:06 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1286
Posted: Fri Apr 18 16:28:06 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Apr-86 07:28:53 EST
References: <1377@lll-crg.ARpA> <713@bentley.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 24

In article <713@bentley.UUCP> kwh@bentley.UUCP writes:
>What's the word on extern vs. static scope for external identifiers?  Last
>I heard, there was some talk about changing the default from extern to
>static, but I think it got dropped for compatibility reasons.  (Also, C++
>was supposed to have static as a default, but Bjarne had to revert back to
>extern to maintain peaceful coexistence with C.)  I think this modification
>should be phased in, too; the first step would be to issue a warning on an
>external definition like "int i = 4;" and "void f() {...}" (warning: extern
>scope assumed) and force the user to specify either "static int i = 4;" and
>"static void f() {...}", or "extern int i; int i = 4;" and "extern void f();
>void f() {...}", whichever was intended.  Then the default could be changed
>(warning: static scope assumed) and finally the warning could be dropped.
>I'd like to see this introduced with the ANSI standard.
>
>Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint

You left out the middle stage, where not specifying anything is an error,
not a warning.

Actually, I would be quite happy to leave it at that stage.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108