On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:34:22PM +0100, Klaus Klein wrote:
> Those are strong words being used in a weak argument.  There are
> several instances of such headers available in NetBSD;

In that case all these are broken. I've already fixed such brokeness in the
past and nobody ever complained.

The only argument against sane include files I've seen so far is increased
compile time. And because we are deliberately using things like extra
gcc's checks or "lint" which slow down compilation to increase quality
this is really a null argument.

It is bad enough that C's primitive and lousy scheme to provide external
declarations and functions doesn't handle such things automatically
like e.g. Modula II's module concept. But declaring this brokeness
a feature is just sheer madness.

	Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://scheler.de/~matthias/