> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@zen.void.oz.au>
> Cc: current-users@NetBSD.ORG
> From: matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
> Subject: Re: C Language Standard(s) 
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 14:12:24 +1100
> X-Loop: current-users@NetBSD.ORG
> 
> 
>    > The __P has the definite down side that it looks ugly, 
>    
>    But less ugly than 
>    
>    #ifdef __STDC__
>    int foo(short x)
>    #else
>    int foo(x) short x;
>    #endif
>    {
> 
> but how *else* do you do this correctly, for it to work with both
> k&r compilers and "strict ansi" ones ?
> 
> i know it's ugly, but, i know of no other way to get the benefits
> of prototypes while still allowing the code to compile with non-ansi
> compilers (which some code that i maintain requires).
> 

Could someone please explain to me why we are concerned if we maintain
compatibility with K&R.. I must have missed that argument. And it's not
a good enough argument to say that we need to maintain old code. I would
like to hear the why argument and not the because argument.

Why not mandate all new code be ANSI.. And work on porting the old stuff.

Thanks.

-brad w.