[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: status icon support
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: status icon support |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:00:58 -0500 |
Where is the point in combining a prototype that won't compile under K&R
compilers with a K&R definition (which won't compile under C++ or newer
standard compilers)?
Our prototypes compile just fine in a K&R compiler, due to _P.
The reason I prefer K&R style in function definitions is that the
argument type declarations are easier to read when not inside the
parentheses.
- Re: RFC: status icon support, (continued)
Re: RFC: status icon support, Richard Stallman, 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, 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 <=
- 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, 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, David Kastrup, 2008/01/12