Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11955 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18240 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!cmcl2!adm!haven!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Function declarations (style) Message-ID: <13124@mimsy.UUCP> Date: 21 Aug 88 00:16:59 GMT References: <10102@genrad.UUCP> <11879@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 21 In article <11879@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: >... somewhat as follows: >x() { static z(); z(); } >y() { static z(); z(); } >static z() { ; } > >(MSC apparently chokes; BTW, TurboC accepts it.) My question is... Why >declare z() inside the functions x() and y()? ... declaring static z() >prior to and outside of both x() and y() ... seems like the only natural >thing to do. Why do some people like a certain 181-novel 1930s and 1940s SF pulp series? The only answer is `style': Some people just do. (Incidentally, with the publication of `In Hell, Madonna' as `The Red Spider', now there are 182.) (Now I wonder how many people will recognise the series named above...) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris