opaque style question

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Who said the user can read the header? Chapter and verse, please.

They do. They also do other things that are not considered
kosher. How many compilers do you know that do not use physical
header files?

Anyway, *your* definition of type opacity is at odds with the
common one: a type whose definition is not documented (C header
files don't count as documentation). FILE is the canonical C
example of opaque type. As usual C helps people to avoid
shooting themselves in the foot but doesn't even try to prevent
them from doing that.

Since we disagree on the definition, there is no point in arguing
about the details. I can create things that satisfy my
definition.

 

[Dan Pop]

They do. They also do other things that are not considered
kosher. How many compilers do you know that do not use physical
header files?

They need not be in human readable format (ever heard of precompiled
headers?). Furthermore, the definition of __FILE can be built into
the compiler, rather than provided in <stdio.h>. It's up to the
implementor. __FILE is in the implementation name space, therefore
its definition can be always in scope, regardless of what headers
are included.

Since we disagree on the definition, there is no point in arguing
about the details. I can create things that satisfy my
definition.

Only if you destroy the source code after compiling it ;-)

Dan