Subject: Re: Style guide
To: Scott Reynolds <scottr@Plexus.COM>
From: Johan Danielsson <email@example.com>
Date: 05/28/1997 03:29:09
Scott Reynolds <scottr@Plexus.COM> writes:
> > 2) There is always unproto available if need be for bootstrap.
> Running unproto is harder than doing nothing at all.
Ok, if we leave the `I like X better than Y' discussion. I make the
following (perhaps bold) statement: code written in `ANSI' C generally
has higher quality than code written in K&R C.
Is the quality-of-code argument something that you can accept as a
reason to get rid of old cruft? As stated before, I think that most of
the code can not be built with a pre-ANSI C compiler.
If pre-ANSI compatibility is a goal, I think that it should be
enforced. Taking the bad parts from both K&R and ANSI and mixing, does
not sound like a useful thing.