Subject: Re: Style guide
To: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 05/28/1997 20:06:11
On Wed, 28 May 1997 22:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
firstname.lastname@example.org (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) wrote:
> Also, I know perfectly well that the reason for casting to void is to shut
> lint up. I just happen to feel that that is just begging the question.
> The question is, why do we need to add something to the code to keep
> another tool from complaining about the fact that we haven't added it
> to the code. I know that there is some marginal utility but mostly
I use lint fairly often, and this feature has caught bugs a couple of times
> Or C.
...unless you actually _want_ to catch the value from close(), but forget!
> None that I can see and no one has suggested one.
> > __P()/__STDC__ isn't going to go away, either, for two very big reasons:
> Two issues here. Of course __STDC__ isn't going away. As for __P, unproto
> is just as easy when necessary and makes the code cleaner.
...if someone can't get access to an ANSI compiler, what makes you think
they're going to d/l unproto, and run it? (It makes mistakes sometimes..
__P() does not).
> > 2. _NOT_ _EVERYBODY_ _HAS_ (_ACCESS_ _TO_) _AN_ _ANSI_ _C_ _COMPILER_!
> No need to shout. Everyone understands this and many people have dealt
> with the issue. Remember, the discussion is not about C code in general,
> just the NetBSD system code. Just because people haven't dealt with the
> issue to your satisfaction, doesn't mean they haven't dealt with it.
...Oh, I dunno... a long time ago, I ported and used some NetBSD code
under AIX 2... The structure of NetBSD's source tree made that fairly
> > This has gone beyond religious into overstepping the bounds of
> > practicality. You don't seriously expect every bit of useful code
> > to be ANSIfied overnight, now, do you?
> No I do not. Have I suggested this? Has anyone? I have seen exactly
> the opposite stand; just change files slowly. Both styles can coexist
> under C89 in the same source tree.
I'm going to put my Core hat on for a sec:
C9X seems like they want to change the world, with no thought
to backwards compatibility. With that attitude, how can the
committee even expect it to gain any momentum. If it doesn't
gain momentum, why should NetBSD jump on it?
...and to put my Software Developer hat back on:
Sounds like a language I don't want to program in. So much
for reusing legacy code.
Jason R. Thorpe email@example.com
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