Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: <varargs.h> vs. function prototypes
Keywords: <varargs.h> usage
Message-ID: <16456@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 19 Jun 91 14:19:51 GMT
References: <159364@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1991Jun18.145823.2512@cbnewsk.att.com> <14423@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 23

In article <14423@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
>In other words, we are not willing to bend over backwards (for compatibility)
>until it hurts, only until it is mildly uncomfortable. :-)


But surely it's not appreciably harder, for the few uses of varargs
functions, to type the always correct
	void foo(va_alist)
		va_dcl
		{
		char *format;
		...
		format = va_arg(ap, char *);
		...
		}
instead of the sometimes incorrect
	void foo(format, va_alist)
		char *format;
		va_dcl
		{
		...
		...
		}