Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:55:42 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, Mike Heffner <mikeh@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/lam lam.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102091739020.12654-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200102090410.f194AZU05387@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Mark Murray wrote: > > > > > > This just breaks K&R support and adds style bugs (spaces after function > > > > names, and **argv instead of *argv[]). > > > > > > K&R support is not important anymore. > > > > Some disagree. > > Then they can use a cc wrapper that feeds the C code through cproto or > something. They might use the "mail -s 'request-for-K&R-unbreakage'" wrapper :-). > > It is only not very important IMO. Not worth the effort > > to throw it away. > > It is visually offensive, and I am more than happy to provide the effort. __P(()) is much less visually offensive than things like LIST_FOREACH() which have been growing like weeds lately. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0102091739020.12654-100000>