Re: [dwm] Updated bottom stack patch

On 9/17/07, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_suckless.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:25:40PM +0100, Chris Webb wrote:
> > One question: why do you explicitly declare all dwm.c functions static
> > given that you only have a single source file anyway?
>
> Yeah, that's unnecessary. I remove that - it will also consume
> less disk space then ;)

i feel static to be nicer
maybe i'm used to library writing where you declare local functions as static

i looked into the c-faq and interestingly i could not find anything
about this kind of convention
even standard unix tools use both convention in a mixed way (static
and non static)
Received on Mon Sep 17 2007 - 19:43:35 UTC