Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:57:55 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@q9media.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: <freebsd-audit@freebsd.org>, Mike Heffner <mheffner@vt.edu> Subject: Re: whois(1) patch Message-ID: <B7405553.C0E%mike@q9media.com> In-Reply-To: <p05100e0cb73f7fa476a3@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/3/01 1:50 AM, Garance A Drosihn at drosih@rpi.edu wrote: > At 6:26 PM -0400 5/31/01, Mike Heffner wrote: >> On 31-May-2001 Mike Barcroft wrote: >> | >> | I originally made the ANSI C change to silence a warning, but is >> | there any reason not to bring the code up to ANSI C spec? Is it >> | likely that anyone will need to compile whois with a K&R compiler? >> >> It's not likely, but I'm not sure on what the consensus is on >> ANSI-fication. Technically, style(9) says it shouldn't be done in >> this case, but people (myself included) have been removing K&R >> support in small patches like this one. I think there was also talk >> of doing a full sweep to remove __P. > > It is not likely that there will be a specific sweep to get rid > of _P() and to ansi-ify routine declarations. 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. > > If you're going to ansi-ify, then you should ansi-ify the whole > source file, instead of mixing styles. Agreed. Are there any ANSI-ifications I missed in my patch? Best regards, Mike Barcroft 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?B7405553.C0E%mike>