Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!reading!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiit-sh
From: iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Function declarations (was: MSC
Message-ID: <83@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 13 Sep 88 13:50:35 GMT
References: <64@cybaswan.UUCP> <12400016@cpe>
Reply-To: iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood)
Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology
Lines: 26

In article <12400016@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes:
>bigtex.UUCP!james in cpe:comp.sy.ibm.pc writes:
>>It's worse than all that.  ANSI C permits conflicting function
>>declarations without a warning - indeed it is required that no warning
>>be given. ...
>>... and I can't conceive of any
>>implementation where the ANSI C requirement is actually useful.
>
>I can.  When you want to use a return value in more than one way.

[ example deleted ]

Yeah, but surely the *storage class* of the function declaration shouldn't
be allowed to conflict?

The example showed good use of conflicting *types*, can anyone justify having
the same name declared 'static' and 'extern' in the same file? I can't.

-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc,                             | Phone (+44) 792 295213
Image Processing and Systems Engineer,         | Fax (+44) 792 295532
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: iiit-sh@uk.ac.swan.pyr
Swansea SA2 8PP                         | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            My views are not necessarily those of my employers!