On 01/01/2013 11:29 PM, Karl Berry wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > To support pre-standard C, instead of writing function definitions > in standard prototype form, [SNIP] > and then again, near the end: > In order to support pre-standard compilers that do not recognize > prototypes, you may want to use a preprocessor macro like [SNIP] > > Sure, both of those are only talking about *if* you want to support > pre-standard C. > > both of which seems redundant, if not in contradiction, with the fact > that it's now OK to require C89. > > It is neither redundant nor a contradiction, as far as I can see. > Ah OK, so the standards don't say "don't bother supporting K&R, ever", but only "it's perfectly OK not to support K&R; if you really want to do so, follow this advice ...". If this is the case, I can see there are indeed no contradiction (maybe the wording can be clarified a little to avoid confusion like mine, but that is low priority and maybe not even worth the effort).
> IMHO this references to no-longer-supported K&R C (and other similar > references, if any) should just be removed. > > Last I knew, rms doesn't want to remove K&R C references yet, because > it's not true that it is "no longer supported" (in his mind). > Bummer. > What's true is that GNU packages are not *required* to support K&R. > (And haven't been for a long time.) > OK, got it. Thanks, and sorry for the noise, Stefano
