Re: Function definitions
Re: Function definitions
- Subject: Re: Function definitions
- From: Jonathan <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 10:56:51 -0700
- Thread-topic: Function definitions
Ah. I think that answers it.
Thanks :)
Best,
Jonathan
on 4/9/06 2:24 AM, Derrick Bass at email@hidden wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>> Couldn't you just do the declare in the header:
>>
>> int sum (int value1, int value2);
>>
>> and then just use the function you just declared in the function
>> implementation:
>>
>> sum ()
>> {
>> return (value1 + value2);
>> }
>>
>
> Theoretically yes, one could have designed the language that way (at
> least in C). (In C++ you could not do this, because you can have
> several functions with the same name that take different types and/or
> numbers of arguments.) But that's just not the way it works because
> of the way the language was originally defined and how it evolved
> from there. As others have mentioned, header files are essentially
> optional, so all the information for a particular function needs to
> be available in the implementation file.
>
> I'm also not so sure it would be good style, since someone wanting to
> understand your sum function would need to look up the variable names
> and types in the header file. (Although you have to do this for C++
> and Objective-C classes anyway, so maybe no one would mind.)
>
> In any case, it is annoying to have to type (or copy and paste) this
> information twice, and then keep it synchronized in the face of
> changes, but the time required is pretty trivial compared to the time
> actually spent coding, so I don't think anyone would have the
> appetite to break C for the sake of changing it.
>
> Derrick
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden