Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim
From: jim@ism780b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: summary of C-standards workshop at U - (nf)
Message-ID: <17@ism780b.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 00:16:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780b.17
Posted: Thu Aug  2 00:16:16 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 03:03:20 EDT
Lines: 16

#R:utzoo:-401300:ism780b:25500008:000:664
ism780b!jim    Jul 17 21:33:00 1984

> It would seem that "extern int foo()" would be the best way to declare
> a function with only variable arguments, although doing this would
> prevent the same syntax from being used at a later date to declare
> a function with no arguements.

It seems to me it would make plenty of sense if "extern int foo()"
meant "foo takes an totally unknown (arbitrary) number of variables of
totally unknown (arbitrary) type", which it does anyway, attempts at finding
other syntax to represent the same thing notwithstanding, and if
"extern int foo(void)" (a hack, but a clear one) were used to mean "foo takes
no arguments".

-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)