"Burton Radons" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Walter Bright Wrote: > >> Jason House wrote: >> > IMHO, this type of thing is easy to understand. >> >> Yeah, well, I still get regular emails (for the last 20 years at least) >> from the gamut of professional programmers at all levels of expertise >> who do not understand what "undefined symbol" from the linker means. It >> happens so often I am forced to consider the idea that the defect lies >> with me <g>. >> >> If I could figure a way to design *that* out of a linker, I would. > > For every extern generate a weak symbol that does nothing but assert out > with an error message; if it's properly resolved it goes away, if not then > it's executed when the symbol is called. Now the linker isn't giving any > errors. > > I actually remember doing that once! What the hell was I doing that for? > Some kind of late binding malarkey maybe.
That's sort of cheating, the error's still there, it's just gets shoved from build-time to run-time.
