On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < [email protected]> wrote:
> In > <of7a183342.9aaee2a3-on85257dcf.004a2e03-85257dcf.004a6...@us.ibm.com>, > on 01/16/2015 > at 08:32 AM, Peter Relson <[email protected]> said: > > >I'd say that it is C that confused static with constant. > > The ue of static and dynamic to refer to the allocaion tecnique rather > than to the variability of the contents predates C. > This is conceptually similar to the difference, in a COBOL subroutine, between WORKING STORAGE and LOCAL-STORAGE. With COBOL, WORKING STORAGE is initialized at start up and keeps its values between invocations. This is like the C "static" storage. OTOH, LOCAL-STORAGE is gotten and initialized anew on each invocation. As is a non-static variable defined in a C routine. Of course, there is a major difference in that a C "static" variable is actually allocated in the storage of the executable code (i.e. in the text segment). Whereas, IIRC, WORKING-STORAGE is dynamically allocated in the LE heap somehow. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> > We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. > (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- While a transcendent vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful so that the calculated objective of communication does not become ensconced in obscurity. In other words, eschew obfuscation. 111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
