On 9/17/07, Anselm R. Garbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:25:40PM +0100, Chris Webb wrote: > > One question: why do you explicitly declare all dwm.c functions static > > given that you only have a single source file anyway? > > Yeah, that's unnecessary. I remove that - it will also consume > less disk space then ;)
i feel static to be nicer maybe i'm used to library writing where you declare local functions as static i looked into the c-faq and interestingly i could not find anything about this kind of convention even standard unix tools use both convention in a mixed way (static and non static)
