Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:23:35 +0100 (MET) From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bruce vandalism again Message-ID: <199712201023.LAA29380@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <199712200839.TAA23072@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <199712200912.UAA00292@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Birrell <jb@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> wrote: > If the use of the __P macro in new code is discouraged, then FreeBSD > is not trying to keep K&R compatibility (like NetBSD insists on). So > we are *encouraging* ANSI prototypes. Then (IMO) code that is being > edited (for other reasons) should have its function definitions > changed to ANSI style at the same time, regardless of how much code > is regarded as new according to this silly statement. I'm all in favor of new-style definitions, but wouldn't bless the above sentence completely. If someone's doing a major overhaul, then yes, by all means. If ``is being edited'' means just a single change (perhaps only fixing a typo), moving the entire file to new-style function calls would just and only obfuscate the actual change that has been performed by the commit next time you run `cvs diff' on it again. The `style compatibility' issue has one point: you can look at the actual functional changes by comparing against the 4.4BSD vendor branch. If someone's going to break this by basically rewriting an entire driver/subsystem/whatever, then this becomes a non-issue anyway, and other cosmetic changes could be done by the same time (but preferrably in a second commit, so the functional and the cosmetic changes can be looked at separately). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712201023.LAA29380>