From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 14 17:15:43 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id RAA19101
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:15:43 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA19085
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:14:56 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA27939; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:03:55 +1000
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:03:55 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199504150003.KAA27939@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: dufault@hda.com, joerg@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: 90's compilers
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>   o Moved all external declarations to boot.h, declared all functions
>>   there, and ANSIfied all function declarations/definitions.
>>   (printf() remains bogus, however -- i'm too lazy to fix this.)
>>   We're in the ninetees, dunno why we should still support compilers
>>   from the 70's.

>If you're proposing changing the coding guidelines away from KNF
>on this I'm all for it.

KNF is mostly about formatting.  Its main conflict with ANSIfication is
that it doesn't cover new-style function definitions.  This isn't a
problem because old-style function definitions are standard too.

The main reasons to keep using KNF are:
- to make it easier to merge changes from CSRG and NetBSD.
- there is too much to change.

Bruce