On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 00:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Most likely (and I for one will for sure resist any attempt to force
> >> global uniqueness on static names).
>
> > You're right that the issue can be avoided easily enough, but what need
> > is there _not_ to have globally unique function names?
>
> To me that's pretty much in the you've-got-to-be-kidding domain. The
> reason static functions and local name scoping were invented was exactly
> to avoid having to ensure every single name is unique across a whole
> project. The overhead of avoiding duplicates swamps any possible
> benefit.
I agree. I think we can use #include foo.c and in any situation where we
*may* run into duplicate statics, a few lines of sed magic should be
enough. Thus, we would have no impact on the existing code.
Gavin
