Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!oberon!orion.cf.uci.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!nagel
From: nagel@blanche.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Subroutine layout in C
Keywords: Here's a couple of handy macros...
Message-ID: <3286@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 89 21:06:18 GMT
References: <2459@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1987@lznh.UUCP>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: nagel@blanche.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: ariel@lznh.UUCP (<10000>Ariel Aloni)

In article <1987@lznh.UUCP>, ariel@lznh (<10000>Ariel Aloni) writes:
|In article <2459@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes:
|>
|>  Frank is correct, this is exactly what you want to do.  However, I like
|>to do the following:
|>
|>#define PRIVATE static
|>#define PUBLIC 
|
|C is terse and accurate, if you want to invent new keywords for C
|please don't abuse CPP, design your own new language.
|In your particular example the change of 'static' is very confusing
|since 'static' has a different meaning for functions and variables.

Wrong, it makes it more clear.  The static keyword is overloaded, so
why is it confusing to rename it to more accurately reflect the
desired semantics?  It is easy to abuse cpp, but this is not such a
case.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Dept of Info and Comp Sci
ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu              | The world is coming to an end.
UUCP: {sdcsvax,ucbvax}!ucivax!nagel  | Please log off.