Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:05:19 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: 90's compilers Message-ID: <16934.797965519@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Apr 95 08:24:18 %2B0200." <199504150624.IAA01712@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ANSI-style function declaration seems to be much more rationale, and > if done consistently from hour 0 of some new portion of code, it ain't > more work. But it's not only function declarations, consider the I've always stayed neutral on the whole KNF issue as it's not all that important to me what style code is formatted to, just so long as it's self-consistent. However, I do feel that full prototypes are no longer optional and furthermore hate constructs of the form: int foo _P((int bar, char *blatt)); As I feel that "protection" for old and braindead compilers at the cost of higher obfuscation is no longer worth it. You (not YOU, Joerg, the generic "you" :) want to port to some braindead architecture for which your only compiler is an ancient version of pcc? Sorry, you lose. Either stick with minix, port gcc first or unprotoize your own copy of the code. Don't drag us back into the dark ages with you by avoiding the direct use of proper ANSI features! Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16934.797965519>