On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Given
<dg@cowlark.com> wrote:
On 06/12/11 19:24, Wim Couwenberg wrote:
[...]
> In c++ "const T obj;" is a definition (with internal linkage) while in
> c it is only a tentative definition (with external linkage).
> Moreover, in c++ const data *must* be initialized, either by an
> explicitly declared constructor or an initializer. So in c++ "const
> TValue obj;" is indeed an error since TValue declares no constructor
> (obviously) and the definition of obj does not specify an initializer,
> such as ={}.
I have, in fact, just been looking into this...
The C++ idiomatic alternative to tentative definitions is to use unnamed
namespaces. So:
static int i;
...
static int i = 4;
...becomes:
namespace
{
extern int i;
...
int i = 4;
}
Due to magic, i is visible throughout the rest of the file but nowhere else.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible:
namespace
{
extern int i;
}
...
namespace
{
int i = 4;
}
Backwards compatibility? They've heard of it.
--
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│
│ "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
│ stupidity." --- Nick Diamos (Hanlon's Razor)
