Re: [PATCH v2] Make fetch-pack a builtin with an internal API

[Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>]

On Monday 2007 July 09, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > "All identifiers beginning with an underscore are reserved for ordinary
> > identifiers (functions, variables, typedefs, enumeration constants) with
> > file
> > scope."

> I think the above does agree with what I said.  It says that you can
> use functions, variables, typdefs, enumeration constants (not just
> labels or structure members) WITH FILE SCOPE.  I.e., so long as it
> doesn't leak across a .o linkage.  So one .o file can use a static

I'm reading it as meaning they are reserved at file scope; not that you can 
use them at file scope.

> _my_strdup, and another .o file can use a static _my_strdup, and they
> don't have to worry about multiply defined function conflicts, since
> they are static functions with file or smaller scoping.

Erm, but we're not talking about your own .o files we're talking about 
conflicting with the library; what you say would be true for any identifier.  
We have no way of guaranteeing that _my_strdup() isn't defined by one of the 
standard library headers that have been included.  The standard header is 
entitled to use underscore identifiers because they have been reserved at 
file scope.

Reading a little further into the FAQ you posted, I found the following in the 
list of exceptions:

"You may use identifiers consisting of an underscore followed by a digit or 
lower case letter for labels and structure/union members." 
and
"You may use identifiers consisting of an underscore followed by a digit or 
lower case letter at function, block, or prototype scope."

I'm more sure now - you can't use underscore identifiers at file scope.

Regardless, we're just splitting hairs now.  We seem to both agree that it's 
easiest just to outright not use underscore-prefixed identifiers; so I'm 
happy. :-)




Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com