Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm
From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Manx/Lattice ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Message-ID: <MWM.91May28115402@raven.pa.dec.com>
Date: 28 May 91 18:54:02 GMT
References: <1991May26.022108.7901@sugar.hackercorp.com>
	<1991May26.172439.2021@NCoast.ORG>
	<1991May27.125456.27018@sugar.hackercorp.com> <cg.0967@ami-cg.UUCP>
Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 35
In-Reply-To: cg@ami-cg.UUCP's message of 28 May 91 06:17:46 GMT

In article <cg.0967@ami-cg.UUCP> cg@ami-cg.UUCP (Chris Gray) writes:
   In article <1991May27.125456.27018@sugar.hackercorp.com>
    peter@sugar.hackercorp.com writes:

   >Well, I'm trying to convert a program full of things like:
   >
   >	int a(char b, float c);
   >
   >	...
   >
   >	int a(b, c)
   >	char b;
   >	float c;
   >
   >These are not compatible declarations. Because of the promotion rules, the
   >latter is equivalent to:
   >
   >	int a(int b, double c);

   Hmm. I seem to recall that the presence of an ANSI prototype for a given
   function would convert a following old-style definition of the function into
   the given ANSI form. Thus, in the above, it would be just the same as if
   the function definition had been    int a(char b, float c) { ...

This is what SAS did about it. Manx did it the way Peter described it.
I think ANSI left the case undefined, so both compilers are "right." I
prefer the way SAS did it - it makes building code that ports between
prototyped & non-prototyped environments much more straightforward.

	<mike
--
When logic and proportion have fallen softly dead,	Mike Meyer
And the white knight is talking backwards,		mwm@pa.dec.com
And the red queen's off her head,			decwrl!mwm
Remember what the dormouse said.