Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!jack
From: jack@mcvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Export/import for C?
Message-ID: <7012@boring.mcvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 05:02:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: boring.7012
Posted: Wed Jul 16 05:02:34 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jul-86 06:54:59 EDT
References: <131@kaist.UUCP> <175@miduet.mifnet.gec-mi-ate.co.uk> <640@uvacs.UUCP>
Reply-To: jack@boring.uucp (Jack Jansen)
Organization: AMOEBA project, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 20
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax


In article <640@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP writes:
>> I think C's usage of 'static', as applied to functions, to mean 'don't export'
>> is unfortunate.
>:
>> I would prefer the use of 'export' and 'import' as in Modula, with 'import'
>> replacing 'extern'.
>> (I don't speak for my employer)			jgh@gec-mi-at.co.uk
>
>I can appreciate the aesthetics of export/import, but I don't think it would
>improve my coding.  One of the reasons that I like C is the idea of having a
>grab-bag of functions at my disposal with the special exception of those which
>have been explicitly hidden from me via ``static''.
>
This is exactly what you *don't* want! The situation in C is that the default
is that a function is exported. This leads to the fact that most people
will, unthinking, make a lot of functions extern, while they could have
been static. An explicit 'export' could force you to think about it.
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
	The shell is my oyster.