On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:39:31PM -0500, Ryan Gerleve wrote: >> Sounds good to me. But thinking about Johannes' question - does >> 'extern' have semantic value when applied to main? The C++ standard >> says main's linkage is implementation-defined, and I don't see how an >> extern main would be different from a non-extern main. (Please correct >> me if I'm wrong). If it doesn't have semantic value when applied to >> main, would it be best to be consistent in the fix-it and have it >> remove everything (or nothing) that's just semantic sugar? > > Hm. Good question. It's too late to go into language lawyer mode to > decide whether extern on a function body has a semantic value. I leave > that to someone else to decide. If the answer is yes, reorder would be > nice though ("extern int main(){}", not "int extern main(){}"). > > Joerg
Alright, that's fair. But while I prefer "extern int" over "int extern" also, should a fixit really be suggesting a coding style to the user, as opposed to trying to match what he or she already typed? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
