Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: static arguments
Message-ID: <1756@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-May-86 06:01:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1756
Posted: Sat May 31 06:01:26 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jun-86 09:41:43 EDT
References: <170@njitcccc.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@maryland.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 16

In article <170@njitcccc.UUCP> ron@njitcccc.UUCP (Ron DeBlock) writes:
>[Someone] accidently declared the arguments to his function as
>static [...].  I realize that it really makes no sense to do that,
>but the compiler did not flag the "error". [...]  The question is,
>are static arguments legal even though they make no sense?

No.

>If not, why doesn't the compiler flag the problem?

It is buggy.  The 4.3BSD C compiler, whatever its faults, gets this
one right: it complains about an `illegal class'.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu