Re: Various small patches (Zend, TSRM...)

At 13:41 5/12/2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:

    Now you are putting words into my mouth. No, I did not assume
    that. I replied to your criticism of the changes in ANSI C
    and tried to outline why it is sensible to write "foo(void);"

Uhm, you said "I disagree. Requiring functions to be fully prototyped does make sense for type promotion.". Nobody was arguing that The 2nd part of your paragraph was totally subjective (why is there a need to differentiate anyway?)

    We are still in a transition phase. ISO C99 supports the K&R
    semantics of prototypes with empty parentheses, because such
    code bases still exist and are only slowly converted over to
    using prototype-format parameter type declarators, if at all.

    But: ISO C99 says in 6.11.6: "The use of function declarators
    with empty parentheses is an obsolescent feature."

So again I say, it's good to see that the committees are advancing backwards. Instead of removing this stale 'void', they're now forcing to add it in. Bright.

    So, the K&R semantics will go away. That is why I maintain
    that you should not suppress a compiler message which simply
    says "you are using an obsolescent feature. Don't do that."

It makes perfect sense to turn off a warning that basically warns you that you forgot to write redundant 4 letters (if it was possible, which unfortunately it isn't with the compilers I know). At any rate, I don't really care. I don't plan on writing (void) on a regular basis until compilers become dumb enough to force me to do that, and I hope (and believe) that won't happen (the 'transition phase' you're talking about is likely to outlive all of us, because of the huge C code base that exists). Zeev -- Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> CTO, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/