From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr 15 10:05:28 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA16944
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:05:28 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA16935
          ; Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:05:21 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Subject: Re: 90's compilers 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 15 Apr 95 08:24:18 +0200."
             <199504150624.IAA01712@uriah.heep.sax.de> 
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:05:19 -0700
Message-ID: <16934.797965519@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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