Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: VMS 'C' prototypes
Message-ID: <6340@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 00:06:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6340
Posted: Wed Aug 26 00:06:06 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Aug-87 06:14:44 EDT
References: <434@naucse.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 19
Keywords: Prototypes, VMS 'C'

In article <434@naucse.UUCP> jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell) writes:
>Should old and new style definitions yield different behaviors?
They do in many circumstances.  The next X3J11 public review
package should have more examples to clarify this.
>Is this the expected way to implement prototypes?  
More or less, except that considering a (float) to
be assignment-compatible with a (char**) seems to
stretch matters a bit.

I think the documentation was pretty accurate, but
the rules on this have changed somewhat, so you
should avoid pushing the compiler into the dark
corners of the spec in this regard.  If you're
going to use prototypes, use them everywhere and
don't depend on the automatic parameter coercion
(it should work in all "sane" cases, but I think
it's better style to use explicit casts, to let
the future code reader know what is going on and
that you really did intend it).