Subject: Re: C Language Standard(s)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: Brad Walker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/10/1996 00:11:18
> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <email@example.com>
> Cc: current-users@NetBSD.ORG
> From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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)
> int foo(x) short x;
> 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.