From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jul 29 08:22:22 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA04717
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA04707
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id PAA29645; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:22:09 GMT
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:22:09 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: David Greenman <dg@Root.COM>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kernel assertions 
In-Reply-To: <199607291358.GAA26833@root.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960730001516.29370B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, David Greenman wrote:

> >This was a simple example but I'm sure it could make code a lot less
> >intricate in other places.
> 
>    ...and a lot less informative. I prefer the existing model.

I think they are more informative when used to specify the parameter
requirements immediately after the function is defined.

Forget that a MACRO is being used to implement it and imagine that it was
an integral part of the C language from the beginning. 

Mike Hancock