Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Scope of externals definitions
Message-ID: <1288@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: Wed, 30-Sep-87 16:42:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.1288
Posted: Wed Sep 30 16:42:39 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Oct-87 23:05:01 EDT
References: <8652@utzoo.UUCP> <69800001@cdp>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 16
Summary: Are they really being that strict?

In article <69800001@cdp> cprodehl@cdp.UUCP writes:
>Declaring a function (or prototype for that matter) inside block scope
>is now [as of Sep87 X3J11 meeting] undefined behavior.

If this is literally true, it seems a bit of overkill (though I could live
with the restriction).  In particular, if the function is never used outside
of the block in which it's declared, the semantics are unambiguous and so I
see no reason for it to be undefined behavior.  (In fact, it's a useful
documentation aid to give an object the smallest possible scope.)

If, on the other hand, X3J11 is actually saying that something like
    f() { extern char *p(); ... }
    g() { ... p(); ... }
produces undefined behavior, that seems perfectly reasonable.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint