Re: are inlines static?

Article View: net.lang.c++

Article #142

#142

From: Andrew Koenig
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1986 18:14

11 lines
983 bytes

> alice!ark claims that "inline" routines are not implicitly
> static, unless declared otherwise.  He/she may be right, in
> the case of the existing compiler, but Rich Wales is right "by the
> book".
>
> Read section r8.1 more closely: *everything* at the
> top level is static unless declared otherwise.  Doesn't the
> existing compiler follow this?

Sorry.  I forgot the differences in scoping rules.  Maybe Bjarne will
clarify the situation.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <5253@alice.uUCp>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark

References: <34200014@orstcs.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: are inlines static?
Message-ID: <5253@alice.uUCp>
Date: Sat, 5-Apr-86 13:14:54 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.5253
Posted: Sat Apr  5 13:14:54 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Apr-86 01:24:13 EST
References: <34200014@orstcs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 11

Reply to Parent Message