Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Creeping ADAisms in C
Message-ID: <1987May5.134446.4174@sq.uucp>
Date: Tue, 5-May-87 13:44:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: sq.1987May5.134446.4174
Posted: Tue May  5 13:44:46 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 6-May-87 06:12:39 EDT
References: <1535@umn-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
Lines: 39
Keywords: quit inventing jargon
Checksum: 39601

This is a complaint about terminology in the Draft Standard:

> A function prototype is a declaration of the TYPE of a function.  So
> why not call it a function declaration,  and the place where you define
> it,  a function DEFINITION?  Why introduce new jargon?

To quote from section 3.1.2.1 of the Draft:

  "A function prototype is a declaration of a function that declares
   the types of its parameters."

The new jargon is useful because it lets several sections say things like
"the following behavior occurs if a prototype for the function is in scope".
For instance, suppose NULL has one of the values* permitted in the Draft
Standard, and setbuf() is the usual function; then if someone writes:

	setbuf (fp, NULL);

then if setbuf() was DECLARED as:

	void setbuf();

the effect is implementation-dependent, but if it was declared with a
PROTOTYPE, as:

	void setbuf (FILE *, char *);

then the example does what was really wanted.  Having the term "prototype"
available lets this be stated more clearly.

Personally, I have always found the terms "declaration" and "definition"
confusing, but as they are well established, I wouldn't dream of asking
for them to be changed.  "Prototype" is a new term for a new thing, and
both term and thing seem clearly a good idea to me.

*an integral constant expression of value zero or such an expression
 case to type "void *".  For instance, 0 or 0L or (void *)0.

Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb			C unions never strike!