Re: Function definitions
Re: Function definitions
- Subject: Re: Function definitions
- From: John Stiles <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:14:45 -0700
On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ondra Cada wrote:
Scott,
On 11.4.2006, at 22:55, Scott Ribe wrote:
Well, header files *could* be eliminated and the info extracted from
implementation files
No they could not. Far as function/message prototypes go you are of
course right, even the global variable references could be sucked
out from the implementation, but with macros and typedefs you are
out of luck.
Java solves this in a typically elegant Java way by not having
these great features at all :)
Hmm, I don't see anything preventing typedefs from being in .o files.
Sure, they aren't there today, but if you were designing the system
from scratch (like Java), it seems possible.
I didn't know Java didn't support typedefs (been years since I've
used it seriously). But I think Java's reasons for jettisoning macros
had nothing to do with this issue.
_______________________________________________
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