Re: RFC: status icon support

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
>
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> 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.

"only"?

    Obsolescing K&R Function Declaration Style

    The K&R function declaration style in the form of

    func(n, m) /* return type is unspecified */
    int n; double m; /* function parameters */
    {
     /*function body*/
    }

    was used in K&R. It was later replaced by the more common form:

    int func(int n, double m) 
    {
    /*function body*/
    }

    The K&R function declaration style is obsolescent in C99. This means
    that compilers are allowed to reject such code or accept it with a
    warning message. In either case, they aren't allowed to ignore it.


Compilers are not allowed to accept this style of declaration without
warning.  They are free to reject it completely, however.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum