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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #17644

Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets?

Show all headers | View raw

Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:53:43 +0000 (UTC), Lord Voldermort
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
[...]
>>Are you sure about this? Industry best practise is -- if possible, be 
>>backwards compatable; if that can't be done, provide an automatic 
>>updater. This has always been the case eg with Visual Basic.
>>
>>It seems quite wreckless to update C while breaking existing programs and 
>>leaving people to re-code manually!
>
> You've misunderstood Ben.  The addition of function prototypes in the
> language did not break existing programs.  What may cause somewhat
> subtle problems if you change your K&R style function declarations to
> prototypes.  There are case where the obvious prototype will cause
> somewhat different behavior, and cases where the exact behavior cannot
> be matched at all (although such are usually indicative of other
> problems).  But you can just leave your K&R style declarations as-is,
> and nothing breaks.

Not quite.

Non-prototype declarations are still in the language, up to and
including the 2011 standard (and have been obsolescent since C89).
But C99 removed implicit int, which did break existing code
(though the fix was straightforward and fixed code could still be
compatible with pre-ANSI compilers).  C11's removal of gets() also
broke existing code (though such code was already arguably broken).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-18 22:18 +0000
  Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-18 22:36 +0000
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-18 22:55 +0000
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-19 06:05 +0000
  Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-18 15:01 -0800
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-19 10:54 +0000
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-19 12:21 +0000
        Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-19 19:53 +0000
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-19 12:15 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-19 13:58 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-19 17:19 -0600
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-19 18:41 -0500
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-20 01:51 -0600
            Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-20 02:19 -0800
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 00:45 -0800
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 00:52 -0800
        Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-20 13:25 +0000
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-20 10:33 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-02-21 19:51 +0000
            Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-21 15:11 -0500
              Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-02-22 08:35 +0100
                Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-22 02:18 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-03-01 05:57 -0500

csiph-web