Re: abandon K&R C ?

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>     This also seems be a good opportunity abandon K&R C.
>> 
>> I am not looking for an "opportunity" to do this.
>
> Btw, we can have the cake and eat it, too, by using the P_ macro
> (defined on lisp.h).

I think compiling Emacs using a K&R-only compiler has been impossible
for a long time anyway, as many Emacs functions have been written in
ANSI style with no regard for K&R-compatibility.  Nobody has complained.

Morever, it would probably take a fair amount of work to make Emacs
compile with a K&R compiler again.

If there are actually any K&R-only compilers left (are there?!), it's
likely they're so crufty/out-of-date/underfeatured that they'd never be
able to handle Emacs anyway.

It doesn't seem worth it to me to _rewrite_ existing K&R-style
definitions -- that would just cause a lot of headaches for merging --
but I think it would be good to explicitly state that it's OK to use
ANSI-style definitions for new functions or rewrites etc.

Using P_ also seems sort of pointless, as it only exists for the benefit
of K&R.  So I think it would also be good to state that it's unnecessary
to use P_ for new function declarations (in headers etc).

-Miles

-- 
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.  [George Carlin]