Here comes a very special wish - please do not call me crazy:
Working with many C modules, I prefer to define protected/"dangerous" variables static to one module. Quite often I would like to have a variable global only in a restricted number of modules - typically only in one module and then further the the communication modules (e. g. "comm1.c", "comm2.c").
To achieve this, it would be terrifically nice, if I could create the following code with a special pragma modifier (I made the examples with two modules "comm1.c" and "comm2.c", to keep the examples more general - but in fact I would be perfectly happy, if this would work with restriction to one further module "comm.c"):
#pragma RestrictedGlobal "comm1.c" #pragma RestrictedGlobal "comm2.c" int iRestricted;
(alternatively also like this (but then it would not work in other C compilers):
#pragma allowAccess "comm1.c" #pragma allowAccess "comm2.c" static int iRestricted;
)
In "comm1.c", "comm2.c" then the extern command
extern int iRestricted;
should be allowed - but it any other module it should fail (best would be, if the command itself would be allowed, but if the access to iRestricted would fail in any other module - then it is possible to include the extern declaration in some header file without the danger of failure)
I know that this is not possible in any other C compiler, but I think pragma is not standardized, so C compiler producers can add their own - just I think better use the first of the above alternatives, as then the code will also work in other C compilers not recognizing this pragma.
... I know that this might be quite an effort, as it concerns the very interior of the compiling/linking tables ... so just a polite question ... .
What you have to realize is that the operator "new" isn't the only way to get object variables in C++.
That's what I meant with my statement "I would presumably use C++ in a sort of quasi-static approach".
If I skip new, then usually I would define all my classes global. And in this case of course it will not make much sense to use constructor / destructor functions. So the main advantage of using C++ then will restrict to the variable protection scheme of C++, which of course is very advanced.
... perhaps in some future I will try some small steps with some simple global C++ classes without constructor / destructor ...
Constructors/destructors aren't bound to the use of "new" and "delete".
They apply just as well to global objects, or objects created on the stack.
You want to make classes complete - and that would include the use of constructors/destructors. Of course, some classes don't define anything that need destruction in which case you can get by with an empty default destructor.
But just as global C variables are always zeroed, you want all C++ objects (however they are created) to have a known state of all member attributes. Unless you think it's fun to debug programs having uninitialized variables taking random values depending on what was in memory before.