Re: Perl_foo() vs foo() etc

Front page | perl.perl6.internals | Postings from April 2001

Re: Perl_foo() vs foo() etc

Thread Previous | Thread Next

From:

kaih

Date:

April 13, 2001 05:17

Subject:

Re: Perl_foo() vs foo() etc

Message ID:

7zm5ojHHw-B@khms.westfalen.de

dan@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski)  wrote on 12.04.01 in <5.0.2.1.0.20010412183156.018e22e0@24.8.96.48>:

> At 12:16 AM 4/13/2001 +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >dan@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski)  wrote on 11.04.01 in
> ><5.0.2.1.0.20010411094111.019e2790@24.8.96.48>:
> >
> > > *) All private routines have #defines to give them a _Perl_ prefix
> > > *) All private data have #defines to give them a _PL_ prefix
> >
> >IIRC, ISO C says you cannot have /^_[A-Z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*$/. That's reserved
> >for the standard.
>
> Yeah, well, we'll just have to write ANSI C instead.

ANSI *is* ISO with regard to C.

> :-P More seriously, if
> we want to be cautious we could double the underscore for private data
> instead.

I hope you don't think __P<something>, because the regex above does cover  
that, too.

MfG Kai

Thread Previous | Thread Next