Subject: Re: C Language Standard(s)
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 01/11/1996 10:13:39
Jason Thorpe writes:
> 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).
This I can easily understand...
> And there just might be a time
> in the future when someone with a K&R compiler needs to bootstrap NetBSD
> on some new platform...it could happen...
...but on the other hand, unproto will work just fine in this case.
> Of course, I don't really want to "mandate" anything. I'd much rather
> *encourage* writing clean, portable code.
I think that the argument is that there is a slight conflict here
between maximal portability and maximal cleanliness. New-style
function definitions and the rest would make things cleaner and less
buggy, but reduce portability. I guess its a question of priorities.