Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.programmer:720 comp.std.c:4286
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: ANSI prototypes, the right choice...
Message-ID: <1991Feb9.054832.2932@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 9 Feb 91 05:48:32 GMT
References: <1991Feb5.155953.26790@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
Lines: 23

In article <1991Feb5.155953.26790@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes:
> Strictly speaking, this is not true.

Point. But...

>     int foo( char a, char b );

>     int foo( a, b )
>       char a, b;
>       {
>         ...
>       }

Yeh, stuff like that. Apparently Lattice C for the Amiga accepts this and
silently fixes it up. Other C compilers (some UNIX compilers, apparently)
do the same thing, because I keep getting UNIX and Lattice-C/Amiga source
that looks like this... so I get to go through fixing up all the definitions
so it compiles. It's getting old.

Please... folks... write your code consistently or don't bother.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.