Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 15:19:31 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: christoph.mallon@gmx.de Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, rdivacky@FreeBSD.org, ed@FreeBSD.org, dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <20090502.151931.1396014860.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de> References: <49FCA148.9060707@gmx.de> <49FCAA1D.1080208@elischer.org> <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de>
Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> writes:
: Julian Elischer schrieb:
: >> Christoph Mallon wrote:
: >>>> K&R code should be changed as part of related changes if possible.
: >>>> A sweep to change a whole file is probably also ok.
: >>>> changing them one at a time is probably not ok.
: >>>
: >>> But this is what actually is practiced.
: >>> You still did not answer my question: Do you agree to remove the
: >>> clause so no new old style declarations may be added?
: >
: > I think a new clause should be added specifying what should happen
: > and replacing the old clause.
:
: This is not sensible. style(9) says right at the start that it "[...]
: specifies the preferred style for kernel source files [...]". The
: preferred style would be to use ANSI function declarations - what else
: is there to say? There is no point in adding more when less is sufficient.
Actually, in a style guide, there is a point.
Adding language that says we're actively removing K&R-style
declarations and definitions reinforces this point and explains to
people what's going on when they see this in the tree today.
This would have been understandable by some folks if I'd left it at
the first paragraph, but by adding the second it becomes clear the
reasoning behind my post.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090502.151931.1396014860.imp>