🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May12.194247.21483@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bs@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Benjamin Schreiber) writes:
>In article <1991May10.003304.12390@mathcs.sjsu.edu> horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) writes:
>>Just out of curiosity: Suppose I have a variable f that holds a pointer
>>to a "C" style void->void function and I want to make f local to its source
>>file, do I say    static extern "C" void (*f)();

No, that is a declaration with 2 storage class specifiers
that differ in their linkage demands.

>From reading the grammar, I get the feeling that the correct way to do this
>is: extern "C" { static void (*f)(); };

It is.

>Since any declarations/definitions are gramaticly allowed inside an extern
>construct.  The following may also be valid: extern "C" static void (*f)();

It is not.  That still contained 2 storage class specifiers with different
linkage.

Getting back to the original data type though.  This:

    extern "C" { static void (*f)(); };

is not "a variable f that holds a pointer to a "C" style void->void function".
Instead it is f that is being extern C'd.  The correct decl for the original
problem would be:

    extern "C" typedef void (*ptCf)();
    [static] ptCf f;

This typedef ugliness must be used.  I honestly don't know how many
compilers accept this though.

- Greg
-- 
	 Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418
                          Producers of Comeau C++ 2.1
          Here:attmail.com!csanta!comeau / BIX:comeau / CIS:72331,3421
                     Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310