Ken:
> Sorry, please explain to me again what we would gain by using the P()
> macros that unprotoize doesn't already do?
Unprotoize is fine. But the advantage of using the guard macros is
that it isn't compiler dependent, and will work with any compiler,
and doesn't require the extra program, and uses less memory, and
is more portable. Also the standard include files already use
the __P() macro.
Using the BCC "-ansi" switch works too. Its advantage is that by
piping through unprotoize, the function bodies can be written in
ANSI C too.
Whatever. The whole point is that some way of using ANSI
developement tools would be nice, and would help improve the
quality of ELKS. The details of how its implemented is not that
important in the grand view. Either method should produce acceptable
results.
Anyway, this discussion is premature. There probably won't be
any movement toward ANSI anytime soon.
Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
