Darío Mariani wrote: > > I am thinking of using # define-s to use these four words: > > > > local, sticky, classwide, nothis > > > > instead of static in my C++ programs to make them more meaningful. I > > believe that the above four are mutually distinct purposes of the single > > static keyword and whether a future C++ standard disambiguates these > > purposes or not (where I prefer it would) I can even now use these new > > clearer keywords. > > IMHO, I think it's not a good idea to add your own keywords to your > code. This will make it harder for anyone else to read it. It also makes it harder for software (other than the compiler) to read it. It isn't enough that the compiler can understand the code. It also needs to be understood by text editors, lint, indent, etc. Such programs invariably use syntax which doesn't exactly match the definition of the language. The C preprocessor makes that almost inevitable. Remember, source files are what goes *in* to the preprocessor, while the syntax of C (the structured grammar written in BNF in the appendix of any decent C textbook) describes what comes *out* of the preprocessor. In practice, most programs (other than the compiler) which attempt to parse C (e.g. text editors which perform syntax highlighting, indentation, etc) simply ignore preprocessor directives and assume that any names are simply variable/function/field/tag names, not macro names. If you cause this assumption to fail, someone will get bitten. -- Glynn Clements <glynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-c-programming" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
