Peter Seebach wrote:
> Yes, it is.  Or rather, it is very likely.
> 
> What does K&R buy you?  There's no way any significant part of NetBSD
> will ever compile on a pre-ansi compiler anyway, and gcc is free and
> widely available.
> 
> So far, implicit int is *gone*, and old-style functions have been
> straw-voted out, although the formal proposal has not yet happened.
> 

Would this function header work in C9X ?

int foo(c)
	char c;
{}

So - would it be possible to write code, which compiles
cleanly under any type of compiler ? Prototypes are okay
when using __P, I'm just curious about function definitions.

> While I sort of like the old-style definitions for appearance, the
> old-style declarations (no arg info) are unacceptable for a serious
> project, and the semantics of old-style definitions are wrong for
> modern compilers.  I wouldn't object to a proposal under which
> an old-style definition behaved like a prototype, but many of the
> members of the committee would, so we probably won't get one.  :(
> 
> -s
> 


-- 
Jaromir Dolecek             	ICS MU, Botanicka 68A, Brno, 60200, Czech Rep.
dolecek@ics.muni.cz			Tel.: +42-5-4151 2266
http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is better never to have been born.  But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naše poslání v životě není mít úspěch, 
ale v dobré náladě pokračovat v chybování.
						R.L.Stevenson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------