Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 19:10:40 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bruce vandalism again Message-ID: <199712220210.TAA27576@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19971222101914.28785@lemis.com> References: <199712201434.JAA00329@dyson.iquest.net> <14545.882642903@time.cdrom.com> <19971221120534.43478@lemis.com> <199712211002.LAA00388@uriah.heep.sax.de> <19971222101914.28785@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Self-consistency, inside one file. > > So far, so good. But the question of consistency brings with it the > question of what kind of consistency. Specifically, do we want to > advance or retreat? Converting a file for the sake of converting a file isn't 'advancing't the state of the art. White-space changes for the sake of white-space changes aren't doing anybody any good. However, having said that, in the pccard userland code, I've been slowly changing the style/format of the file over time. It is now almost completely ANSI, mostly because I'm maintaining the code. Since I'm maintaining the code, I felt it would help *ME* do my job better, and since I prefer ANSI prototypes it wasn't a wasted effort. revision 1.6 date: 1996/06/18 23:50:51; author: nate; state: Exp; lines: +36 -64 Staticize and removed unused code. ---------------------------- revision 1.5 date: 1996/06/18 19:52:29; author: nate; state: Exp; lines: +34 -232 - Removed dead code (if you need it you can get it out of the Repository). - Added some comments, and moved some code around to make flow more obvious. No functional changes. ---------------------------- revision 1.4 date: 1996/04/18 04:25:13; author: nate; state: Exp; lines: +25 -1 Added RCS Id and BSD-style copyrights to individual files. ---------------------------- revision 1.3 date: 1996/04/10 06:49:30; author: nate; state: Exp; lines: +360 -413 Run indent on all these files to make them more readable. (I also went through by hand and cleaned up some indent bogons.) ---------------------------- However, changing files just to change them makes no sense to me, because it's not helping anyone. Basically, if you can't understand the code just because it uses K&R prototypes, then changing them to use ANSI prototypes 'just to use ANSI prototypes' is silliness. > > It's quite normal that if your definition is old-style, the > > declaration would still be prototyped on a compiler that defines > > __STDC__ (via __P()). > > If the programmer does the Right Thing. My understanding was that > style(9) discourages __P(). No, style(9) encourarges file consistency, which is *still* the primary argument. Bruce changed some files that Julian modified to be self-consistant, and Julian objected to it. Self-consistancy *was* and continues to be the real issue. > > Mixed declaration styles inside the same file have never been > > encouraged. > > No debate about that. Actually, that is the crux of the original matter. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712220210.TAA27576>