From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 5 20:05:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA09808 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 20:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.gbdata.com (tel_ppp0028.livingston.net [207.22.211.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09800 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 20:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gclarkii@localhost) by main.gbdata.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA01503; Mon, 5 May 1997 22:04:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Gary Clark II Message-Id: <199705060304.WAA01503@main.gbdata.com> Subject: Re: /usr/include/ftpio.h is not C++ safe To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 22:04:46 -0500 (CDT) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, nadav@barcode.co.il, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199705052009.GAA09324@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "May 6, 97 06:09:16 am" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Bruce Evans wrote: > >Don't pollute new code with the __P() gunge. It just makes it harder > >to read and there are no compilers we need to use which do not accept > >full ANSI prototypes. > > Headers in /usr/include should support K&R since they may be used with > old code. > > Bruce > What is our reason for having old code around? Is there a GOOD reason why we are trying to support a non-ansi compiler? What is the chance that FreeBSD will ever need to do this in real life? Gary -- Gary Clark II (N5VMF) | I speak only for myself and "maybe" my company gclarkii@GBData.COM | Member of the FreeBSD Doc Team Providing Internet and ISP startups - http://WWW.GBData.com for information FreeBSD FAQ at ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.ORG/pub/FreeBSD/docs/FAQ.latin1