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: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200801120157.m0C1v6WL020654@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <200801121352.m0CDqERq011212@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <85zlvb3yhn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <200801140247.m0E2lMeE010066@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1200331630 31689 80.91.229.12 (14 Jan 2008 17:27:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 14 18:27:30 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 1JET5s-0006UT-UV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:27:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JET5U-0006dv-EC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:27:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JET4t-0005v0-IF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JET4r-0005rp-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JET4r-0005ra-J5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:25 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JET4r-00039B-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:25 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JET4q-0003Nw-F5; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:26:24 -0500 In-reply-to: <200801140247.m0E2lMeE010066@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> (message from Dan Nicolaescu on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:47:22 -0800) 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:86899 Archived-At: As you can see from the message cited above the discussion was not about changing what we have now, but about what to do with new code. K&R definitions are ok in new code. They have always been ok. Until a couple of years ago I insisted on K&R style function definitions. Then I decided to accept ANSI style also, but that is as far as we have gone. I don't want to reconsider the question at this time, because there are many other more important things to do than reconsider this.