Em Saturday 05 February 2011, Raphael Kubo da Costa escreveu:
> Lamarque Vieira Souza <lamarque@gmail.com> writes:
> > Em Saturday 05 February 2011, Raphael Kubo da Costa escreveu:
> >> Lamarque Souza <lamarque@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > +bool compareOnlineStatus(const Kopete::Account *a, const
> >> > Kopete::Account *b); +bool invertedCompareOnlineStatus(const
> >> > Kopete::Account *a, const Kopete::Account *b);
> >>
> >> Isn't it better to make them static?
> >>
> > I do not know why. They are not declared in any header, nobody can use
> >
> > them outside kopetewindow.cpp. Making them static would not improve
> > anything as far as I know. Anyway, I can do the change.
>
> I admit I at first had C in my mind when I wrote about this -- if you
> didn't add the static specifier, the functions would be accessible to
> the other compilation units.
>
> In this specific case, I can only think of the possibility of a name
> clash if another compilation unit defines the same functions. Even
> though it is unlikely, you may find it better to err on the safe side.
If someone created a function named exactly like that he/she would probably implement something very close to what I did, then it is better use that functions instead of duplicating them. Clashing the names would give the person a tip that someone had already done that. Anyway I have changed them to be static.
--
Lamarque V. Souza
http://www.geographicguide.com/brazil.htm
Linux User #57137 - http://counter.li.org/
http://www.kde-mg.org