PureBasic Forums - English

Can i make a request for the static keyword to be overloaded to create global variables with source file scope like C?

Would be very useful in my current PB project.

It's a good idea I totally do not understand a word you're saying

Blood wrote:Can i make a request for the static keyword to be overloaded to create global variables with source file scope like C?

Show us how that would look like in C and I'm sure someone can answer that question.

In C the static keyword serves two purposes. Firstly the one we know from Purebasic inside
Procedures, and secondly, when used on global variables outside any procedure the 'static'
means that only the functions within the same sourcefile have access to it. This even
works for functions themselves, e.g. a function declared like this: can only be used within the sourcefile it exists.

That's a very useful 'scope-limiting' feature!

Thats one thing I dislike in PB, all the includes share the same namespace. I always have to give all global variables prefixes in all includes so that nothing is overlapping. I never programmed in C, but it sounds very useful.

that is a good idea!

according to PureBasic's conventions, it would mean to declare a Variable Protected outside a Procedure.

milan1612 wrote:In C the static keyword serves two purposes. Firstly the one we know from Purebasic inside
Procedures, and secondly, when used on global variables outside any procedure the 'static'
means that only the functions within the same sourcefile have access to it. This even
works for functions themselves, e.g. a function declared like this:

Code: Select all

static void foo();

can only be used within the sourcefile it exists.

That's a very useful 'scope-limiting' feature!

Yes! It would provide a simple namespace for source files. For example, you could define lots of global variables in one source file that work with particular procedures in that source file. When this source file is included into another, that file cannot see the static globals in the included one. Also for procedures, you could create ones that are hidden from other source files, etc.. Very useful IMHO.

At the minute everything is lumped together.

Blood wrote:At the minute everything is lumped together.

I can't agree more to this! Actually, the idea to mimic C in this case is a very good one, because
this doesn't break existing code as inside procedures the meaning of static wouldn't change.

Fred, what do you say?

Ah so.

Well, I'd like 'modules' or 'workspaces' better, I think this discussion took place once before...

I'd rather prefer something like this:
Now all that would remain is a syntax that would not interfere too much with the old behaviour... We've got...
Perhaps a level more could help? Perhaps 'Universal' or 'Beyond'...
An alternative would be workspace adressing, perhaps in combination with the above, but the syntax might be tricky...
It's all just a suggestion...

blueznl wrote: Well, I'd like 'modules' or 'workspaces' better, I think this discussion took place once before...

Yup

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 486#p98486

Any news on this request? It has, after all, been nearly two years.

secondly, when used on global variables outside any procedure the 'static' means that only the functions within the same source file have access to it.

Does this mean that included source files would not 'see' the same value of the variables that the main line source would see? Or that variable would be separate for included source?

Would this be for the purpose of security?