Re: Function definitions
Re: Function definitions
- Subject: Re: Function definitions
- From: Scott Ribe <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:34:25 -0600
- Thread-topic: Function definitions
> 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.
And why exactly could one not extract macros & typedefs from a single type
of implementation file and maintain them in a database? There are languages
that support these features and don't require redundant header files.
> Oh, and one a-propos: you are right they could, but the language
> would have to be extended considerably so as it also makes sense.
Not for C++. For Objective-C you'd need @public and so on. Either way,
appropriate tools could provide various useful views of classes, as with
Eiffel, where you can request client, subclass, or internal views.
--
Scott Ribe
email@hidden
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice
_______________________________________________
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