I would recommend wrapping such classes in an anonymous namespace to avoid surprising link errors due to unintentional name collision. Such problems can also be difficult to spot at first as sometimes the linker "just" works and then you get a seg fault sometime later.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > How about classes that are only used in one cpp file? Should we be wrapping > those in an anonymous namespace? > > - Ryosuke > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: > >> The guideline is not to disallow anonymous namespaces. >> >> It’s to prefer “static” over anonymous namespaces when either one would >> work. >> >> Debugging tools on at least some of the platforms work better with >> functions that are given internal linkage by using the “static” keyword >> rather than functions that are inside anonymous namespaces. >> >> On the other hand, anonymous namespaces are a more powerful tool that can >> do more than the “static” keyword can. >> >> -- Darin >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
