• Harvey (37/37) Nov 18 2004 Well two really.

"Harvey" <hstroud ntlworld.com> writes:

Well two really.

First one, how's abouts being able to use the 'static' keyword for function 
parameters, to denote that this parameter will not change on subsequent 
calls to the function (from with itself only). This could be of use for 
recursive functions where the (outside) caller needs to provide some info, 
flag etc but once in the function it will retain the value upon further 
internal calls (although just like other statics, this could get changed 
internally).

recursiveFn(true);

int recursiveFn(static bit flag)
{
    recursiveFn();
}

This could produce more optimal code than functions which pass such args 
back into themselves even though they might never change. Admittedly the 
calling of a function with a different arg set internally than externally is 
a bit strange but I guess the same could be said of funcs that are 
overloaded or have defaulted params.

Would this work? Is a complete rubbish? Does anyone give two hoots?


Also, how's abouts the following syntax for functions arguments:

void fn(int a,b,c; float d,e,f,g,h; char *i,*j; AClassThatHasQuiteALongName 
k,l)
{
}

The current syntax being somewhat long winded:

void fn(int a,int b,int c,float d,float e,float f,float g,float h,char 
*i,char *j,AClassThatHasQuiteALongName k,AClassThatHasQuiteALongName l)
{
}

Ok passing in so many args isn't generally such a good idea but you get the 
point.

Mind you, to be consistent you'd want to do the same elsewhere, so for loops 
could pose a problem:

for (int i=0,n=123; float c=3.1415; i<10; ++i)
{
}

Ah well, back to the drawing board...