From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RFC: status icon support Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:59:35 -0800 Message-ID: <200801121859.m0CIxj6W018916@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> References: <200801120157.m0C1v6WL020654@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200801121352.m0CDqERq011212@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200801121426.m0CEQMIA012081@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1200164506 28189 80.91.229.12 (12 Jan 2008 19:01:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:01:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 12 20:02:08 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 1JDlcN-0005Lu-8n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:02:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDlbz-0006JS-CR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:01:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JDlbv-0006Iv-4Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:01:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JDlbu-0006Hy-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:01:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDlbu-0006Ho-7G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:01:38 -0500 Original-Received: from oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.41]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JDlbp-0004hh-Vq; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:01:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mothra.ics.uci.edu (mothra.ics.uci.edu [128.195.6.93]) by oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0CIxj6W018916; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:59:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:36:52 +0100") Original-Lines: 46 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@mothra.ics.uci.edu X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 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:86822 Archived-At: Andreas Schwab writes: > Dan Nicolaescu writes: > > > Andreas Schwab writes: > > > > > Dan Nicolaescu writes: > > > > > > > Richard Stallman writes: > > > > > > > > > Please no K&R in new code. > > > > > > > > > > We have no policy against K&R style. I recently accepted non-K&R > > > > > function definitions in Emacs sources, but I still do not particularly > > > > > like it. K&R style is easier to read anyway. > > > > > > > > It might be easier to read for you personally, but it is harder for > > > > people that have never written/read any K&R code. Some emacs > > > > contributors have started programming after C was standardized, so they > > > > never had a chance to know any different (and its quite possible that > > > > some were even born after the standardization). > > > > > > Old-style function definitions are still part of the C standard. They > > > are only marked obsolescent. > > > > And because of that they are not being used, people are not being taught > > about them. > > I claim that the majority of existing C sources still uses old-style > function definitions. I cannot prove that, but given the vast amount of > existing old software I would be surprised if a programmer can learn C > without having been confronted with them. And what is your point? That we should insist on using K&R? Let's not forget the starting point of this discussion and stop discussing strawmen just for the sake of discussion. And I completely disagree with your point. I won't make judgements in general, but in my personal experience, I have only seen K&R in GNU software. I have seen a lot of software that was written in K&R style that was converted to ISO C mainly because of better compiler error checking. The conversion is trivial (and as you know, a lot of GNU software was converted too). Second, "having been confronted" is not the same as being familiar, understanding the differences, and actually writing code in the style.