View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000176 | LDMud | LPC Compiler/Preprocessor | public | 2004-11-26 21:17 | 2009-10-05 16:41 |
| Reporter | Assigned To | ||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0000176: #pragma reserve_efun_names | ||||
| Description | Short: #pragma reserve_efun_names From: Matthew Julius <julius.2@wright.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:29:08 -0500 Type: Feature State: Unclassified pragma to 'reserve' [s]efun names For example, the following code compiles fine, void go() { int member; member = member(map, 1); ... } Whereas this will not, #pragma reserve_efun_names void go() { int member; ... } This obviously should not affect overloading [s]efuns. This is also limited to compile time only. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| External Data (URL) | |||||
|
|
Mhmmm. Using variables called like efuns irritates me as well, when reading code. Sometimes it even happens to me by accident, e.g. in case of min,max. So I would welcome it to optionally disallow that. Maybe even including it into 'pedantic'? |
|
|
Very good point. Agreed. |
|
|
Mhmm. An issue concerning sefuns: they are more volatile than efuns and may appear and disappear even during an uptime. Should they be included in here? |
