Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12088 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18388
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!vector!rpp386!pigs!haugj
From: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Function declarations (was: MSC v5.1 Bug???)
Summary: you've got to be kidding me ...
         [ plus random thoughts on ANSI C ]
Message-ID: <371@pigs.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 88 14:20:12 GMT
References: <10102@genrad.UUCP> <11879@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <5680@rpp386.UUCP> <356@sdrc.UUCP> <1757@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie)
Organization: Big "D" Oil and Gas
Lines: 24

In article <1757@microsoft.UUCP> microsof!markro writes:
>In article <356@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:
>>NO!!!  Amazingly enough, MSC got this right - the code is wrong.
>
>Thanks for the answer; here is (I believe) the appropriate section from the
>May 88 draft standard (3.5.1, pg 56, lines 19-20):
>
>  "The declaration of an identifier for a function that has block scope
>   shall have no explicit storage-class specifier other than extern."

is it too late to get this changed back in the standard?  this seems to
be a serious mis-feature.  i have used function declarations inside
of functions to document where a function is used.  now they are telling
us we can't document static functions in this fashion.

i know this has been discussed before, but what exactly is The Committee
trying to do to C?  this one change will result in virtually all of the
code i've written being broken.  [ along with much code i've not written
but still have to maintain ]  the resulting language will share only the
name with the original language.
-- 
 jfh@rpp386.uucp	(The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers)

                              "ANSI C: Just say no"
                                                -- Me.