Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:33463 alt.religion.computers:2002
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aipna!rjc
From: rjc@uk.ac.ed.cstr (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: ANSI C prototypes
Message-ID: <RJC.90Nov6015128@brodie.uk.ac.ed.cstr>
Date: 6 Nov 90 01:51:28 GMT
References: <1005@christopher-robin.cs.bham.ac.uk> <1906@necisa.ho.necisa.oz>
	<RJC.90Nov1145211@brodie.uk.ac.ed.cstr>
	<1990Nov2.030556.27759@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<RJC.90Nov3153129@brodie.uk.ac.ed.cstr> <3933.27353319@cc.helsinki.fi>
Sender: news@aipna.ed.ac.uk
Organization: Center for Speech Technology Research
Lines: 48
In-reply-to: jaakola@cc.helsinki.fi's message of 5 Nov 90 09:38:33 GMT

In article <3933.27353319@cc.helsinki.fi> jaakola@cc.helsinki.fi writes:

    It's okay for me to make an include file, where I declare functions that
    are visible to other modules. But consider the following example:

	    static void auxiliary_func(a) /* private helper-function */
	    int a;
	    {
		    ...
	    }

	    void visible_fun(b)
	    int b;
	    {
		    ...
		    auxiliary_func(b+1);   /* should be checked */
		    ...
	    }

    The point is, why should I have to tell the compiler twice the type of
    auxiliary_func?

You don't. In the above case you havn't even told it once. If you
did...
	
	static void auxiliary_func(int a)
	
	{
	...
	}

you wouldn't need to type anything more. Or if you did that would be a
massive compiler misfeature. This even saves you a couple of
characters :-)


    Ok, I could turn off such warnings in Microsoft C 5.1, but this turns
    off some useful checks as a side-effect! Please, Microsoft, make a
    "prototypes-off" switch into Microsoft C for me!

If the compiler really does complain in the case where you give the
full type in the function definition then I agree that the writers had
better start watching out for mobs of irate users coming after them
with pitchforks and flaming torches. Someone must make a working C
compiler for your machine...

--
rjc@uk.ac.ed.cstr