Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit533!diamond From: diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: vs. function prototypes Message-ID: <1991Jun14.023311.10308@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 14 Jun 91 02:33:11 GMT References: <25353@oolong.la.locus.com> <16405@smoke.brl.mil> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 16 In article <16405@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >By the way, I take exception to the implementation warning you that no >prototypes exists, unles you have specifically asked for that check. >The C standard does not require that prototypes be used. But an implementation is allowed to issue spurious diagnostics. Presumably spurious diagnostics can convey useful information :-) We agree that in a quality implementation, there would be an option to turn useful spurious diagnostics on or off. But as for which setting to use for the default, what is high quality to one person seems to be low quality to another person. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.