Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:26:55 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Mike Heffner <mheffner@vt.edu>, Mike Barcroft <mike@q9media.com>, freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: whois(1) patch Message-ID: <20010622032655.A599@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <p05100e0cb73f7fa476a3@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:50:46AM -0400 References: <XFMail.20010531182606.mheffner@novacoxmail.com> <p05100e0cb73f7fa476a3@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:50:46AM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > It is not likely that there will be a specific sweep to get rid > of _P() and to ansi-ify routine declarations. I strongly think you are wrong. Many of us are talking of doing a sweep. But in a controlled consistent manner. > However, the > consensus is that if you are going to be changing the declarations > in some module for OTHER reasons, then you might want to ansi-ify. I would say "consensus" as much as tolerated. > If you're going to ansi-ify, then you should ansi-ify the whole > source file, instead of mixing styles. Yet another reason to just leave things as-is until a sweep is done. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010622032655.A599>