Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!srcsip!jhereg!mark
From: mark@Jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Prototypes with old style definitions
Message-ID: <1990Feb13.133503.19793@Jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG>
Date: 13 Feb 90 13:35:03 GMT
References: <626@cameron.cs.duke.edu> <2329@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN
Lines: 36

In article <2329@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes:
>In article <626@cameron.cs.duke.edu> amr@dukee.egr.duke.edu (Anthony M. Richardson) writes:
<<	float foo(float, int);
<<
<<	float foo(x, n)
<<	float x;
<<	int n;
<<	{ ......... }
<"Syntax error!" But seriously, the second definition is equivalent to:
<
<	float foo(tmp,n)
<	double tmp;
<	int n;
<	{	float x = tmp;
<		....
<	}


I was under the impression that the standard allowed parameters to be
passed between functions without type coersion in this manner as long
as there was a function prototype in effect.  If no function prototype
is in effect then the second example would be correct.  However, using
prototypes, the former should be correct.  If you wanted doubles
passed, you could always do:

	double foo(double, int);

	double
	foo(double x, int n)
	{ ... };



-- 
Mark H. Colburn                       mark@Minnetech.MN.ORG
Open Systems Architects, Inc.