Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? |
| Date | 2015-09-09 01:57 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87y4ggl88u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <msc3ru$d6a$1@speranza.aioe.org> <msc8l0$rjd$1@dont-email.me> <7e4a07d7-c3b1-4e85-b4c6-baff554aa73c@googlegroups.com> |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:10:33 AM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 9/4/2015 8:46 AM, 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;
>> > }
>>
>> Use the newer form, not the older.
>>
>> The older form does not provide a prototype to "advertise" the
>> parameters to the rest of the program. When the compiler sees a call
>> to a non-prototyped function, it will not necessarily check the number
>> and types of the argument expressions for agreement with the parameters.
>
> This seems like something that could be changed about the compiler,
> allowing the old syntax form to operate like the new one.
In many cases it can't because the old syntax is simply lacking the
information required. Sometimes, if the compiler has seen a definition
(rather than just a declaration) of a function, it could use that to
give a hint about argument type or number mismatches, but even then it
can't be sure. In the more common case of using a function with only a
declaration ins scope, there is nothing to go on:
int printf();
double sin();
> In addition,
> what's to prevent the old syntax from being prototyped in a .h file?
I don't know what that means. You can't give prototypes for old-syntax
function declarations, if that's what you mean, because you'll change
the meaning of the code in some cases.
> Do modern C compilers ignore forward declarations when they encounter
> the old style syntax?
They have to handle it as old compilers did. It's important for old
code that the semantics remain the same.
void f(float f) { ... }
void f(f) float f; { ... }
do not mean quite the same thing. The declaration is not ignored but
must be take to mean what K&R intended. (I'm not giving details because
there is no earthly reason to use this syntax now. Prototypes were
probably the single best change to C that has happened since I've been
using it. No one should have to go back.)
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web