From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RFC: status icon support Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:00:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200801120157.m0C1v6WL020654@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <85r6gn5lr0.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85ir1z5ksh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <8563xz5dpn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1200276070 19827 80.91.229.12 (14 Jan 2008 02:01:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, schwab@suse.de, dann@ics.uci.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 14 03:01:32 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JEEdn-0005xF-3m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:01:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEEdO-0003lt-W7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:01:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEEdK-0003h3-6l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:01:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JEEdI-0003cf-DC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:01:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEEdI-0003cS-5n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:01:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JEEdH-0003NR-Q0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:00:59 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JEEdG-0005iW-Cv; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:00:58 -0500 In-reply-to: <8563xz5dpn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:19:00 +0100) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:86864 Archived-At: Where is the point in combining a prototype that won't compile under K&R compilers with a K&R definition (which won't compile under C++ or newer standard compilers)? Our prototypes compile just fine in a K&R compiler, due to _P. The reason I prefer K&R style in function definitions is that the argument type declarations are easier to read when not inside the parentheses.