Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #69302 > unrolled thread

disadvantages of using old parameter syntax?

Started byAnonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net>
First post2015-09-04 20:46 +0800
Last post2015-09-16 01:12 -0700
Articles 8 on this page of 108 — 24 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:46 +0800
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:49 +0800
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-04 16:19 +0000
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-04 10:10 -0400
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:07 -0700
        Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 01:57 +0100
          Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:09 -0700
            Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 02:47 +0100
              Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 19:34 -0700
                Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 12:07 +0100
            Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-09 13:18 +0200
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:23 -0700
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 07:45 -0700
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-05 14:59 +0200
        Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 13:26 -0700
          Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 08:51 +0200
        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 13:35 +0200
          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 13:59 +0200
            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-08 12:35 +0000
              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 17:55 +0200
                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 13:11 -0400
                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:19 -0700
                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 21:31 +0200
                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 20:33 +0100
                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:56 +0200
                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-20 16:09 -0400
                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-09-21 18:51 -0500
                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-20 21:27 +0100
                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:52 +0200
                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 21:59 +0100
                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 13:54 -0700
              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:28 +0100
          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 10:56 -0400
            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 08:33 -0700
              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:12 -0700
                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:15 -0700
            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:38 -0700
            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:50 -0700
              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 21:24 -0400
                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:45 -0700
                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:54 -0700
                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 21:22 -0700
                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 06:42 +0000
                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:54 -0700
                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-13 10:41 -0500
                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:52 -0700
                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 20:27 +0000
                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:32 -0500
                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:55 -0700
                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:07 +1200
                              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:23 -0700
                                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 +1200
                                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:33 -0700
                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:40 +1200
                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0700
                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 00:10 +0200
                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700
                                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:36 -0500
                              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:29 -0700
                                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-13 23:47 +0200
                                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 17:55 -0700
                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 10:20 +0200
                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 11:01 +0100
                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:07 +1200
                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 12:41 +0200
                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 03:47 -0700
                                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:05 -0700
                                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:20 -0700
                                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 05:51 -0700
                                              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:06 -0700
                                                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 06:26 -0700
                                                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-14 13:43 +0000
                                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 07:26 -0700
                                                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:47 -0700
                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 03:31 -0700
                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-14 06:40 -0400
                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 14:27 +0200
                                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 13:39 +0100
                                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:55 -0700
                                          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:50 -0700
                                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 15:58 +0200
                                              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:37 -0700
                                                Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:43 -0700
                                                  Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 17:21 +0200
                                                    Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 08:53 -0700
                                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 18:23 +0200
                                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:57 -0700
                                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:43 -0700
                                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:50 +0000
                                        Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:48 +0000
                                      Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-14 07:58 -0700
                            Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:35 -0500
              Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:56 -0700
          Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:07 -0700
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:40 -0700
        Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:59 -0700
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-04 10:48 -0400
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2015-09-07 12:48 -0700
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-12 15:35 +0800
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-12 14:25 -0700
        Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-09-12 14:53 -0700
          Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-12 18:21 -0400
    Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:41 -0700
      Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 09:02 +0200
        Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:12 -0700

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#69839

FromPaul N <gw7rib@aol.com>
Date2015-09-07 12:48 -0700
Message-ID<db868816-890a-4667-b997-993a2e27105e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#69302
On Friday, 4 September 2015 13:47:13 UTC+1, Anonymous Shadow  wrote:
> Are there any important differences I should know about when writing 
> code like this:
> 
> int
> main(argc, argv)
> 	int argc;
> 	char* argv[];
> {
> 	do_stuff(argc, argv);
> 	return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> }
> 
> as opposed to this:
> 
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> 	do_stuff(argc, argv);
> 	return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> }
> 
> I know that the first one is used in some old code, like the bsd games, 
> but now nobody uses it anymore. If there isn't a big problem with doing 
> this, I would like to use it, as it saves a lot of space when dealing 
> with multiple arguments with types such as /unsigned short int/, which 
> use up a lot of space on an 80-column tty.

You do realise there's nothing to stop you doing:

int
main(int   argc,
     char *argv[])
{
	do_stuff(argc, argv);
	return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

don't you? New style syntax, no long lines...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70323

FromAnonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net>
Date2015-09-12 15:35 +0800
Message-ID<mt0kj3$po5$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#69302
I think I should also mention that in the zlib source distribution,
there is a perl script that /attempts/ to "transform K&R C function
definitions into ANSI equivalent". It is called zlib2ansi, and seems
to work quite well, with the few small programs that I have tried with
it.

-- 
Anonymous Shadow
49 6E 61 63 63 75 72 61 63 79 20 73 61 76 65 73
20 61 20 77 6f 72 6C 64 20 6F 66 20 65 78 70 6C
61 6E 61 74 69 6F 6E 2E 0A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70386

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2015-09-12 14:25 -0700
Message-ID<lnwpvvl49b.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
In reply to#70323
Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> writes:
> I think I should also mention that in the zlib source distribution,
> there is a perl script that /attempts/ to "transform K&R C function
> definitions into ANSI equivalent". It is called zlib2ansi, and seems
> to work quite well, with the few small programs that I have tried with
> it.

It does have one problem (which is difficult to avoid).  It translates
this:

    int func(arg)
    short arg;
    {
    }

to this:

    int func(
        short arg)
    {
    }

which is not equivalent.  For the purposes for which it's used that's
probably not worth fixing.

-- 
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"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70388

Fromsupercat@casperkitty.com
Date2015-09-12 14:53 -0700
Message-ID<1a2a9baa-cbb9-416b-a9b1-790b61ae1c3b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#70386
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> It does have one problem (which is difficult to avoid).  It translates
> this:
> 
>     int func(arg)
>     short arg;
>     {
>     }
> 
> to this:
> 
>     int func(
>         short arg)
>     {
>     }
> 
> which is not equivalent.  For the purposes for which it's used that's
> probably not worth fixing.

Out of curiosity, did compilers always promote the argument to "int", or
would compilers for ones'-complement or two's-complement systems define
a short which was overlaid on the lowest bits of the passed-in integer
value?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70390

FromEric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Date2015-09-12 18:21 -0400
Message-ID<mt28eg$d4a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#70388
On 9/12/2015 5:53 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> It does have one problem (which is difficult to avoid).  It translates
>> this:
>>
>>      int func(arg)
>>      short arg;
>>      {
>>      }
>>
>> to this:
>>
>>      int func(
>>          short arg)
>>      {
>>      }
>>
>> which is not equivalent.  For the purposes for which it's used that's
>> probably not worth fixing.
>
> Out of curiosity, did compilers always promote the argument to "int", or
> would compilers for ones'-complement or two's-complement systems define
> a short which was overlaid on the lowest bits of the passed-in integer
> value?

     K&R, page 42.

     (Yes, 42: The actual page 42, not HHGTTG.)

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70517

From"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date2015-09-14 11:41 -0700
Message-ID<77a6df83-9da5-4da7-a59f-46fbaf5b4799@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#69302
An very interesting testimony by a man who went deep into worldliness,
but who heard the Lord calling him ... where it brought him to the
point where the Lord's call changed him from within:

     Justin Cobb,
       born 1984,
         had some church growing up,
           tattoo artist:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbooCqyDJ_I

He reminds me of a couple co-workers. :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70605

FromRosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid>
Date2015-09-16 09:02 +0200
Message-ID<1u4ivap14uv7m7isnet1vb32rpp118ijc0@4ax.com>
In reply to#70517
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

>An very interesting testimony by a man who went deep into worldliness,
>but who heard the Lord calling him ... where it brought him to the
>point where the Lord's call changed him from within:
>
>     Justin Cobb,
>       born 1984,
>         had some church growing up,
>           tattoo artist:
>
>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbooCqyDJ_I
>
>He reminds me of a couple co-workers. :-)
>
>Best regards,
>Rick C. Hodgin

here local exorcist said that tatoo are from evil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70610

From"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>
Date2015-09-16 01:12 -0700
Message-ID<a8815e5d-2274-4c2c-bb1c-96eabee73f19@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#70605
Rosario19 writes:
> here local exorcist said that tatoo are from evil

God has commanded for man to not get them,
which is why in these latter times sinful man is
getting them, because Satan is teaching that it is
okay (same as his old lie as to Eve, "God has not surely said..." calling God a liar):

    http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-28.htm
    "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh
     for the dead, nor print any marks upon you:
     I am the LORD."

Justin Cobb was in the tattoo artist business. But
the call of God in His heart commanded Him from
within to get out, and he now has repented and
serves the Lord.

His testimony is very interesting. Maybe YouTube
closed captions can translate it for you.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web