ANSI prototypes, the right choice...

[Steve Summit]

In article <7708 at sugar.hackercorp.com> peter at sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[mixture of new-style prototype declaration and old-style definition]
>While some compilers will accept this declaration while this prototype is
>in scope, it is not portable and should at least generate a warning.

In article <15089 at smoke.brl.mil> gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>No, this is perfectly okay.  If Lattice C has a problem with it, it is a
>bug in Lattice C.

Not necessarily a bug, although I'd probably be annoyed by it.
Old-style declarations and definitions are both officially
obsolescent (sections 3.9.4 and 3.9.5); subject to deletion, at
X3J11's whim, in a future version of the Standard.  As the
Rationale says,

	Characterizing the old style as obsolescent is meant to
	discourage its use, and serve as a strong endorsement by
	the Committee of the new style.  It confidently expects
	that approval and adoption of the prototype style will
	make it feasible for some future C Standard to remove the
	old syntax.

K&R2 additionally asserts (p. 202) that "Mixtures are to be
avoided if possible."  Since compilers may issue any warning
messages they want to, I suspect that Lattice is just trying to
prod people towards the Party line.

(I'm actually not trying to defend the deprecation of the old
style; in fact I prefer that style.  Prototypes don't do anything
for me that lint doesn't do, and they're a pain to use during
transition.  But it's clear they're here to stay, so you don't
need to chastise me for being hidebound.)

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs at adam.mit.edu