From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May  5 21:01:03 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA12251
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA12243
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id DAA08419; Tue, 6 May 1997 03:56:18 GMT
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:56:18 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: Gary Clark II <gclarkii@main.gbdata.com>
cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, jkh@time.cdrom.com, nadav@barcode.co.il,
        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: /usr/include/ftpio.h is not C++ safe
In-Reply-To: <199705060304.WAA01503@main.gbdata.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970506125024.8369A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Gary Clark II wrote:

> 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?

ANSIfying can be a lot of work and has some pitfalls.  Old code stays K&R
and new code is done in ANSI is a good priority guideline to use.  It's
not a rule that's chiselled in stone however.

Mike