[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: status icon support
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: status icon support |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:59:35 -0800 |
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Please no K&R in new code.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have no policy against K&R style. I recently accepted
non-K&R
> > > > > function definitions in Emacs sources, but I still do not
particularly
> > > > > like it. K&R style is easier to read anyway.
> > > >
> > > > It might be easier to read for you personally, but it is harder for
> > > > people that have never written/read any K&R code. Some emacs
> > > > contributors have started programming after C was standardized, so
they
> > > > never had a chance to know any different (and its quite possible
that
> > > > some were even born after the standardization).
> > >
> > > Old-style function definitions are still part of the C standard. They
> > > are only marked obsolescent.
> >
> > And because of that they are not being used, people are not being taught
> > about them.
>
> I claim that the majority of existing C sources still uses old-style
> function definitions. I cannot prove that, but given the vast amount of
> existing old software I would be surprised if a programmer can learn C
> without having been confronted with them.
And what is your point? That we should insist on using K&R? Let's not
forget the starting point of this discussion and stop discussing
strawmen just for the sake of discussion.
And I completely disagree with your point. I won't make judgements in
general, but in my personal experience, I have only seen K&R in GNU
software. I have seen a lot of software that was written in K&R style
that was converted to ISO C mainly because of better compiler error
checking. The conversion is trivial (and as you know, a lot of GNU
software was converted too).
Second, "having been confronted" is not the same as being familiar,
understanding the differences, and actually writing code in the style.
- Re: RFC: status icon support, (continued)
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, David Kastrup, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Richard Stallman, 2008/01/13
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Stefan Monnier, 2008/01/13
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Jan Djärv, 2008/01/14
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: RFC: status icon support, David Kastrup, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, David Kastrup, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Andreas Schwab, 2008/01/12
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Richard Stallman, 2008/01/13
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/01/13
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Richard Stallman, 2008/01/14
- Re: RFC: status icon support, David Kastrup, 2008/01/14
- Re: RFC: status icon support, Richard Stallman, 2008/01/14
Re: RFC: status icon support, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2008/01/13