Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!bruce!conybear
From: conybear@bruce.oz (Roland Conybeare)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC almost gets it right.
Message-ID: <526@bruce.oz>
Date: 8 Sep 88 02:51:10 GMT
References: <5077@fluke.COM>
Organization: Comp Sci, Monash Uni, Australia
Lines: 35

From article <5077@fluke.COM>, by mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney):
> In article <670@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> shane@um.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) writes:
>>The manual clearly states that the MacTraps calls do not have prototypes.
>>
>>You can add prototypes with no problem.
> 
> Documenting a bug does not make it a feature (the Require Prototypes option
> should *require* prototypes for *all* routines; anything less is a bug).

	Ahem!  My version of LSC (2.01) when told to "require prototypes",
complains about all unprototyped calls, *including* toolbox traps.
	So while I would agree that not providing prototypes for toolbox traps
is an omission, I would not call it a bug.

	While I am firmly seated upon my hobby horse,  I wish (Oh, how I wish)
that LSC would allow me to prototype either types or declarations, e.g.
	typedef int (*COMPARE_FN)( float x, float y );
or
	typedef struct {
		int	(*compare_fn)( float x, float y );
		...
	} FOO;
or
	{
		int	(*compare_fn)( float x, float y );
	}

	At the moment, once you start using pointers to functions, you lose
all of that wonderful prototype checking.

Roland Conybeare
(conybear@moncsbruce.oz)

P.S. and yea verily, doth lint, in its wisdom, deign to check calls to
	functions, where such calls be made through pointers?