Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: How to find the problem in the object file Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:14:20 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <23ab01a2-5220-42cb-80b2-20a2b4a35d5c@googlegroups.com> <2beebc58-3f8f-46c6-bd10-e2ec3cf87906@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="70b944d02c574e6a9bb8f45ae4c7cdf9"; logging-data="29054"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fnGT7NG3jZxe9mCelL9bL" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:4KyYlmqV4PjJE62VV8qsXKNDJSs= sha1:825wzOi57qFx4KWg8XTTZ9kiZRs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:103171 Tim Rentsch writes: [...] (Context: Removing non-prototype function declarations and definitions from the language.) > My question here is a little different. Knowing that other > people consider them worth keeping, what explains the reaction > of wanting to exclude them anyway? Is it just a "my opinions > count, and other people's don't" sort of attitude, or is it > something else? I didn't say that other people's opinions don't count. I have my opinion, which I've already expressed, that old-style function declarations and definitions should be removed from the language. In C99, the committee removed implicit int from the language, and it hadn't even been marked as obsolescent. I agree with that decision, and similar reasons apply to non-prototype function declarations and definitions. Removing them would make C a better language. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org 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"