Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Global variables
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 15:40:05 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <ln6040be7u.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <pc5tpv$1o5f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <54_FC.66716$ta2.4920@fx03.am4> <7371a825-33bc-4723-9ed7-18f23f55e76a@googlegroups.com> <kj2GC.35845$9t.13059@fx26.am4> <66d56564-0b72-44b5-aba9-783e62eeed97@googlegroups.com> <vC4GC.78554$GV1.76009@fx32.am4> <fks3f3Ffpt3U1@mid.individual.net> <tu5GC.34633$ga6.7485@fx24.am4> <qDjGC.43146$o43.39682@fx33.iad> <SslGC.160031$Cd3.94316@fx33.am4> <fkumo1Fl1fsU1@mid.individual.net> <khqGC.223876$5v7.65642@fx02.am4> <fkuqilFl1fsU2@mid.individual.net> <RSqGC.80267$6A2.3553@fx21.am4> <slrnpem0sv.jmn.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> <ffEGC.34377$U32.22742@fx04.am4> <pch9jg$66e$1@dont-email.me> <M6DHC.72415$Ze.56654@fx39.am4> <pcng2e$i93$1@dont-email.me> <65JHC.109059$eg.30545@fx43.am4> <pcntds$df1$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f99c42e1138a8c73b9677b033d51f90e"; logging-data="22822"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uIS3aHVBD39LviVKKXxhC"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9YvDyVaBWWTtdAUHlevcaCpFC7I= sha1:+XOjDuGjDyutxOdSuq0wkEFf7BQ=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:130288

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 06/05/18 21:55, bartc wrote:
>> On 06/05/2018 19:03, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 06/05/18 15:07, bartc wrote:
>> 
>> [Allowing () parameter lists]
>> 
>>> Another mistake from the programmer, not the language.
>> 
>> In my opinion it is a language mistake. If such a feature is genuinely 
>> needed from time to time, use (flex) for that, and perhaps change the 
>> meaning of () to be synonymous with (void).
>
> For C, backwards compatibility is key - so the meaning of "foo()" cannot 
> be changed to "foo(void)", as it is in C++.  And C /does/ have a syntax 
> for declaring variadic functions, using "...".  So "foo()" is never 
> necessary, or even useful, as far as I can see, in C89 or newer code.
>
> But because it /was/ necessary before, and exists in useful C source 
> code, it has to be supported by current compilers.

It has to be supported by current compilers because the standard says
so.

But it's been obsolescent since 1989, and a future standard *could*
remove them from the language.  Backwards compatibility is important,
but it's not the only criterion for deciding whether to keep a feature.
Note that C99 dropped implicit int and C11 dropped gets(), both changes
that broke some existing code ("broke" in the sense of making it
non-conforming).

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"