Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12299 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18608
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!tank!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Function declarations (was: MSC v5.1 Bug???)
Message-ID: <13344@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 1 Sep 88 15:15:55 GMT
References: <10102@genrad.UUCP> <11879@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <5680@rpp386.UUCP> <1275@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 29

In article <1275@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
writes:
>... I *would* be surprised to find that there's anything wrong with
>something like

[compressed vertically]

>foo() { ... { double glurf(char*,int); ... } }
>static double glurf(char *s,int maxlen) { ... }

Surprise!

According to the dpANS, the first declaration of a static function must
label that function as static.  Now we also know (from the discussion
chain in the references: line) that function declarations within other
functions may not be labelled `static'.  Putting these together, the
*only* legal ways to write this are:

	static double glurf(char *, int);
	foo() { ... /* call glurf */ ... }
	static double glurf(char *s, int maxlen) { ... }

or

	static double glurf(char *s, int maxlen) { ... }
	foo() { ... /* call glurf */ ... }
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris