Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:1238 comp.lang.c:19076 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: ANSI <--> K&R conversion utilities - COMMING SOON Message-ID: <10311@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> Date: 31 May 89 05:34:12 GMT References: <229@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) Followup-To: comp.std.c Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan Lines: 21 In article cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes: > >(4) When converting from ANSI to K&R, the "automatic cast" facilities > > provided by the prototypes would have to be changed to "explicit casts". > > Ex: If "myfunct()" accepts a "long", and "i" is an "int", then the > > ANSI code "myfunct(i)" would have to be translated to "myfunct((long)i)" > > for the K&R compilers. In article <229@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> rfg@pink.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette) writes: >Who wants to go backwards? Anyone who has to use a K&R compiler, e.g. PCC. Technically this doesn't answer the question; this answers "Who HAS to go backwards?" Anyway, Mr. Cline is right; the perverse transform is also useful. -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are my own. | Why are programmers criticized for If they're also your opinions, | re-implementing the wheel, when car you're infringing my copyright. | manufacturers are praised for it?