Subject: Re: The Function Prototypes Debate vs. C9X...
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Erik Bertelsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/16/1997 21:23:16
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Greg A. Woods wrote:
.. > 2. Old-style function declarations are very, very likely to be gone; a straw
.. > poll of voting members was roughly 10-4-3 (for/against/neutral) on the idea
.. > of removing them from the language spec.
.. DAMN! That sucks. I wish they'd change the name too, since if it won't
.. correctly compile my old *correct* C code, then it's not C. Period!
.. [no smiley!]
.. Well C89 never really made it into my books as C either! ;-)
.. Greg A. Woods
Isn't this getting a bit religous ? To many of us who have had the
``pleasure'' of installing C code on several different platforms using
several different compilers, ANSI/ISO C (I gues that this that is meant by
c89) is been a definite step in the right direction to make portable code
If C9X makes further steps along this path, I'd call it progress. Maybe
I'm getting a little religious as well, but in my priorities, a C language
that is as well-defined and as portable as possibly, is a high priority.
Sticking to the original K&R C for historic or similar reasons is a lower
priority to me.
Not all decisions made by ISO/ANSI C IN 1989 may be ideal, but at least
they made C a more well-defined language.
Just my 0,02DKK