Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #398085
| From | John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: function declaration without args no longer works |
| Date | 2026-04-29 06:22 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <10ss83f$c4t$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <10slf3h$mho$3@reader1.panix.com> <10smamp$1vlj2$2@dont-email.me> <10smvq5$25a7q$2@dont-email.me> <10spm2q$5fq$1@reader1.panix.com> <10spqdr$2vs2g$1@dont-email.me> |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> John Forkosh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, as much as possible, I try to write code consistent with K&R2,
>>>>> so don't usually need "modern language extensions".
>>>>
>>>> That's just creating work for yourself.
>>>
>>> People can have good and bad reasons for choosing to write to older C
>>> standards, though it is unusual to refer specifically to "K&R2". Most
>>> often, people say "ANSI C" - inaccurately thinking that means the
>>> original ANSI C standard, or basically C90. I have no idea why John
>>> chooses K&R2 - I assume he has good reasons for that choice.
>>
>> No particular reason for "K&R2" versus "ANSI C". But overall reason
>> for "older C standard" was (but pretty much no longer is) contract
>> work on a variety of slightly-weird systems, particularly, for
>> example, VMS, which can require, e.g., a variety of very non-standard
>> stuff like
>> #include <descrip.h>
>> ...
>> char tabbuf[64]; /* usual declarations */
>> char *tabnam;
>> struct dsc$descriptor_s /* required descriptor declarations */
>> tab_desc = { 0, DSC$K_DTYPE_T, DSC$K_CLASS_S, &tabbuf[0] },
>> log_desc = { 0, DSC$K_DTYPE_T, DSC$K_CLASS_S, lognam };
>> And I found it easier to stick to an older C standard whenever
>> possible, just to ensure compliance among as many OSs as possible,
>> across as many different platforms as possible.
>> Even one-line // comments rather than /* comments */ can be
>> a problem.
>
> Sometimes work situations (or other special circumstances) require
> working with really old stuff - that's fair enough. But are you really
> required to write new code for compilation on such an old VMS system
> that you can't use C99? You can use gcc with C23 on a VMS target (as
> far as I can figure out from the gcc manual - my real-world experience
> of VMS consists of a single afternoon with remote access to a P-system
> PASCAL compiler as a teenager, so I am not an expert!).
Note that VMS was only one example. I also had contracts requiring
C development on Stratus computers under VOS, on Tandem "nonstop"
(n.b., true, the hardware pretty much never went down, but the
nonstop OS crashed regularly:), and various other lost-to-posterity
platforms. So I simply tried to develop coding habits/style that
would work across them all, and that would remain working for
the then-forseeable future. Clients/customers knew (and still know)
pretty much nothing about programming, and could care even less.
The just want their stuff to work. And >>that's<< what keeps you
on their approved vendor list. Not squabbling over syntax.
As far as new code today? If it were for VAX (or Alpha) VMS,
then I'd continue to be as conservative as possible given my
history with and understanding of that platform, but all my
once-upon-a-time VMS clients have long since migrated.
As far as new code for now-prevalent Unix/C is concerned,
yeah, I'd most likely "update" my coding habits/style
(e.g., your remarks regarding typedef and enum), but it's
always situation-dependent, e.g., when interfacing with
(or just updating) an existing code base, try to maintain
its style if that style is halfway-or-better decent.
Otherwise, explain (as best as possible) the situation to
the client, and see if they're willing to spend the time
and money to update the legacy code.
This endless squabbling that I'm now seeing about
using the $ char in variable names is utterly ridiculous.
I'd never do it, but anybody else can do whatever they like.
End of story, as far as I'm concerned.
>>> In my work I see a lot of libraries and code bases that claim "ANSI C"
>>> as though it were a badge of merit. I think in many cases, what they
>>> are really saying is that someone wrote the code a generation ago, and
>>> the current guys don't really understand how it works so they don't dare
>>> change things.
>>
>> Yeah, a lot of it is old or very old code, but all of the stuff
>> I'm talking about was written by me, so I presumably unserstand it.
>> It's not that I "don't dare change things", it's that things still
>> work (modulo that -std=gnu17 fix in this case -- thanks again, guys)
>> and required changes would involve lots and lots of trivial work
>> with no observable benefit, whereas I'd rather spend my time
>> more profitably (both $-wise and benefit-wise).
>>
>>> Typically such code is horrible. It is painfully structured, full of
>>> home-made pseudo-standard types like "MY_LIB_UINT32", or "i16", or even
>>> "ULONG". "int" instead of bool. Macros instead of static inline
>>> functions. #define'd constants instead of enums. Long functions with
>>> variables declared at the top. (C90 code does not /have/ to be bad, but
>>> it very often is.)
>>
>> Personally, I always use int rather than bool, e.g., sometimes I need
>> a three- or many-valued logic (undetermined typically a third value),
>> and sometimes not sure what will be needed as development progresses,
>> even when there's a detailed design document to begin with.
>
> enum qbool { false, true, maybe, i_really_mean_it, definitely_not };
>
> There are many advantages of bool (or _Bool, pre-C23) over int. And if
> you have a reason not to use bool, then an enumeration is nicer than an
> int (even though in C the enumeration constants are of type int).
>
>> And I'd never #define a name like MY_LIB_UINT32, but often do
>> #define types, again typically because it's not clear what will
>> be needed.
>
> For modern (i.e., this century) programming, don't #define types -
> typedef them. But of course it is a good idea to define type names that
> suit their usage, both to make the coding clearer and to make things
> easier to change. Have "typedef uint16_t user_id;" and then use
> "user_id" in the main code. And if you get more users, you can change
> it to "uint32_t", or pick a different underlying type according to
> updated requirements.
>
> It's the types that give you nothing (in either functionality or in
> name) over the standard types that I dislike.
>
>> Indeed, several times what started out as some scalar
>> type, evolved into a struct, or more simply, sometimes from
>> a three-component vector into a four-component quaternion.
>> #define'd types can be very, very, very useful for a wide, wide
>> variety of reasons. It's always possible to point out a few
>> silly misuses of anything, but not always helpful in general.
>>
>>> And then, in the field of embedded systems, there is often piles of
>>> assembly mixed in because the code was written in a time when compilers
>>> were weak. (Some assembly can be unavoidable.)
>>
>> I did a lot of "mixed" assembly & Fortran coding on the IBM/360 series,
>> simply to speed up heavy numerical work back when computers were slow
>> and compiler optimization pretty much non-existent. Also some assembly
>> on PDP-10s and on PDP lab8/es (so the lab8/es could upload collected
>> laboratory data to the PDP 10 for processing). And also some assembly
>> on DG MV/8000 and C/330 Nova and Eclipse.
>> Besides C, Fortran, and several assembly languages, I've also done
>> some programming in PL/1, Cobol, Basic, and one or two others --
>> every hear of Jovial (Jules' Own Version of the International
>> Algorithmic Language)? C does seem to have survived the longest
>> (Fortran notwithstanding), but I think that focusing solely on
>> its place in the programming language environment might be too
>> one-dimensional.
>
> There's nothing wrong with a bit of assembly when it is essential
> (things like task switching in an OS) or make a big difference to the
> efficiency. But there is a lot wrong with a library (or in my current
> situation, an RTOS) that is full of assembly for simple tasks that would
> not only be far clearer in C, but almost certainly much more efficient.
Absolutely. That's one thing we agree on that 110% (or better).
I've always liked the description of C as "a portable assembly language".
You can pretty much look at C code and see more-or-less what an
assembler will do with it. And nowadays cc -O3, or whatever,
frequently does a better job than I would/could if programming
exactly the same thing directly in assembly.
>>> IMHO, C99 made C programming a lot nicer - it's easier to write, easier
>>> to read, and lets you get more efficient results. C11 adds a few nice
>>> things, though nothing too critical (for my usage), and then C23 adds
>>> some other convenient features. I can appreciate people not bothering
>>> to use C11 onwards, especially if they are writing code that should be
>>> usable on a wide variety of compilers, but I find it hard to understand
>>> why anyone would actively choose C90 over C99.
>>
>> "Passively", so to speak, chosen, at least by me. So the original post
>> refers to a lot of old code, and it would be a big pain in the fingers
>> to go back and fix all the int typer(); kind of stuff just to get it
>> to compile. -std=gnu17 is a much kinder and gentler (to my fingers)
>> solution. And having done that, note that everything now compiles and
>> runs correctly with no further change whatsoever.
>
> It's easier if you write in a better style from the start :-) "int
> typer();" was already obsolescent in C90 (though I don't know if the
> term was used in the K&R2 book - my copy is in a box in the loft somewhere).
>
> I appreciate your dilemma, and why "-std=gnu17" (or similar) is the best
> solution for you. That's why compilers have these flags - people's
> needs and preferences are different. And I'm sure all new code you
> write will use function prototypes !
Yeah, as above, prototypes as well as various other stuff you
suggested, for completely new code destined to remain on Unix/C.
But situations are frequently more complicated than just "new code".
Some of your (and others') remarks sound (to me) like you're coding
in a blissful vacuum. But the world I see is full of pre-existing
complications that frequently can't be precisely predicted, and
that often can affect your choice of coding style. Better to be
conservative and safe than flamboyant and sorry. (Not saying
your suggestions are flamboyant, but the sentence sounded
cuter that way:)
--
John Forkosh
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 13:59 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@gmx.net> - 2026-04-26 16:24 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 16:29 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-04 19:36 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-05 00:15 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-05 09:10 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-05 11:17 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-05 11:07 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 02:24 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-05 11:20 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 18:09 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-07 12:52 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 14:51 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-06 11:41 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-05 10:03 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-05-07 12:35 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 07:36 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-08 18:39 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-04-26 14:32 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 16:35 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-29 16:43 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 08:39 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-26 17:50 +0300
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 16:39 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-27 00:30 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-27 08:30 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-28 07:02 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 10:16 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-28 15:33 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 20:24 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-28 20:22 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-29 06:22 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-29 09:15 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-29 10:06 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-29 11:25 +0300
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-29 11:26 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-04-29 20:07 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 00:14 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 17:57 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-30 03:09 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 00:48 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 20:18 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-01 04:12 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 23:29 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:31 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-01 13:49 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 12:49 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-01 22:31 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 00:13 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:27 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-01 19:28 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 03:07 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-02 16:16 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 01:39 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 00:38 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 03:07 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 05:54 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 14:32 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-04-30 09:45 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 12:48 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-29 11:05 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-29 16:32 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 01:22 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-29 10:42 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 14:31 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 08:42 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-30 13:17 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 14:40 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 22:14 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-29 18:55 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-29 21:19 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-29 16:46 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-28 14:25 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-28 13:13 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 15:48 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-28 15:05 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 16:37 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 14:02 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-29 09:29 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 02:49 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-04-29 20:06 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 17:13 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 00:45 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-04-29 21:11 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 01:40 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 20:09 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-30 14:57 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-30 15:07 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-30 16:20 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-30 16:10 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-04-30 17:48 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 22:31 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-30 22:18 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-01 00:25 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-01 00:08 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-01 01:24 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 17:46 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-01 01:55 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-01 10:48 +0100
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-01 11:20 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 20:23 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-01 10:32 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 14:43 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-01 13:32 -0400
Re: function declaration without args no longer works scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-01 18:12 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-30 03:50 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 08:52 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 14:56 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 15:41 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-29 21:20 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-28 17:14 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 17:31 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-28 19:06 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-28 21:44 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-04-28 17:06 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-28 19:23 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-26 17:35 +0200
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 16:50 +0000
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 15:52 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-04-26 08:38 -0700
Re: function declaration without args no longer works John Forkosh <forkosh@panix.com> - 2026-04-26 16:56 +0000
csiph-web