| ??? 10/05/11 06:45 Read: times |
#184040 - isn't it explained in the book itself? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Robert Revens said:
Page 113 of K&R second edition gives the following example code.
[...] What I don't understand is why char *name is declared static. I would expect something like this to be explained clearly in what is considered to be a seminal work in the field... (I am not next to my "localized" copy now). JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Another static question... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| WIthout Static In This Case | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thank you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It is worse than that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| could add 'const' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's the key! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks Neil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| True - but not quite the point here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| isn't it explained in the book itself? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, it is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If the pupil does not understand... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| In this instance... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
That is why the call it learning. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| isn't this just another example of .... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Information-hiding | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not arguing that part | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not just protection. Also better overview (and reuse) | 01/01/70 00:00 |