Subject: Re: C Language Standard(s)
To: Brad Walker <>
From: Jason Thorpe <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/10/1996 09:13:24
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:11:18 -0800 (Brad Walker) wrote:

 > 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.

We're beating a dead horse, but... :-)

Put quite simply, code that utilized K&R-style function decls is just 
"more portable".  I quite often rip code out of NetBSD and compile it 
under SunOS (with the native compiler).  And there just might be a time 
in the future when someone with a K&R compiler needs to bootstrap NetBSD 
on some new could happen...

Of course, I don't really want to "mandate" anything.  I'd much rather 
*encourage* writing clean, portable code.

Jason R. Thorpe                             
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939