Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: absence of max
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:46:12 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ln8try5d2z.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <0e1db67d-0ab8-4971-a319-8aa66a40b873@googlegroups.com> <871sxvhw4i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1jo1p$i5$1@dont-email.me> <ea7em7Fbq11U1@mid.individual.net> <o1mc22$bsv$1@dont-email.me> <87a8ch18kc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1mut8$gj8$1@dont-email.me> <874m2o22jy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1ndni$bsd$1@dont-email.me> <4894f89e-1b6a-4a7e-97b5-e12c9734da41@googlegroups.com> <o1opij$803$1@dont-email.me> <8e947169-6c71-4977-b6fd-bb7a1185994b@googlegroups.com> <ln8trz7a78.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <422c6643-4e2d-4b71-8937-434aad03bff9@googlegroups.com> <lnzikf5q3u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <ad3c58b4-fe15-4ace-b499-4e1972a674b2@googlegroups.com> <829f496b-0f0d-408c-82b3-8be2bd5775d7@googlegroups.com> <2bba48cd-e2c6-44f1-bce9-eff26acbba50@googlegroups.com> <o1s54c$ioe$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <37a4c69f-07eb-4e03-b548-7348629e6b3c@googlegroups.com> <3bca5c7b-c716-475b-9ce0-cb0b79d23f31@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="090cc7681cd75c4b27901d5937130ec3"; logging-data="2808"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/87DUj9pXIFBIEQ5hTx41I"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6RHf2xC7BDa3pf3E/CVjnPDKwpg= sha1:C8Xehcf9hx338iLWIQ+XMdvjlZU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:97899

jameskuyper@verizon.net writes:
> On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, supe...@casperkitty.com wrote:
[...]
>> and thus no code would have been broken by a requirement that pointer
>> arguments whose type is specified at all must be specified using pointer
>> syntax.
>
> False. That rule would break the following code:
>
>     int foo() int bar; char boz[]; {/* body of foo */}

The correct (old-style) syntax for that would be:

    int foo(bar, boz) int bar; char boz[]; {/* body of foo */}

[...]

-- 
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"