Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!mmdf
From: dsill@nswc-oas.arpa (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 'void *' (was Re: malloc() prob. on 3.4a)
Message-ID: <2184@louie.udel.EDU>
Date: 20 Apr 88 17:36:56 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 67

>	It depends on your definition of 'right'.  If you want to limit
>yourself to obsolete versions of C, be my guest.

I guess you're still missing my point.  Using the K&R style doesn't
limit you to any particular compilers at all; using `void *' limits
you to "ANSI" compilers.

>In my experience, to
>write a [truly] portable C program (e.g. 32 bit int UNIX compiler to, say,
>an IBM-PC C compiler) takes twice as long and as half as readable no
>matter what you do.

I totally agree.  However, I'm not suggesting you make your Amiga
programs truly portable.  I'm suggesting you make them easier to port
to other Amiga compilers.

>	It sounds like you aren't sure of your own code.

I wonder what makes you say that.  I'm sure of my code because I stick
to the least common denominator, i.e. K&R C.  Remember, we haven't
even got an ANSI standard for C yet.  How long do you think it will be
before *everyone* has replaced his compiler with a real ANSI-
compatible compiler?

>The type on the right is obvious since it is
>the same as the type on the left (in a pointer assignment); I don't need
>to be told twice, and when I read my source 10 years from now it will
>look as clear cut and clean and understandable as it did when I first 
>wrote it.

Yes, the ANSI solution is cleaner.  But the K&R solution is universal.
I think it's premature to adopt the non-backward-compatible ANSI
solution when there is a universal solution.  I also think it's worth
sacrificing a little code clarity for intercompiler portability.

>KEEP IN MIND that this whole argument deals solely with
>the declaration of functions that return different pointer types at
>different times.

It really started with:
>>Leo has kind of set a convention of making a lot of intuition funcs() return
>>void [*]-->void *OpenScreen().  Then in the code he has: s=OpenScreen(&sdef);

(Which I still think is wrong.)  What we're arguing about *is*
functions that return different kinds of pointers.

This is obviously becoming a religious issue.  I think both sides have
made their points, and I probably won't post another message on the
topic.  I'll conclude with a final summary of the two sides, as I see
them.

			Pros			Cons
-----------------------------------------------------------------
K&R `char *'	 	all compilers		messy casts req'd
			including ANSI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI `void *'		ANSI compilers only	no messy casts
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, which Amiga C compilers *are* "ANSI"-compatible?  Which
aren't?

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"There's always a place for least common denominators on the market."
					-- Bill Joy