On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 05:02:01PM -0700, Tim Peters wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Python
> In directory slayer.i.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv20859/python/dist/src/Python
>
> Modified Files:
> ceval.c
> Log Message:
> Supply missing prototypes for new Py_{Get,Set}RecursionLimit; fixes compiler wngs;
> un-analize Get's definition ("void" is needed only in declarations, not defns, &
> is generally considered bad style in the latter).
wtf? Placing a void in both declaration *and* definition is "good style".
static int foo(void) { ... }
int bar() { ... }
You're setting yourself up for inconsistency if you don't always use a
prototypical definition. In the above example, foo() must be
declared/defined using a prototype (or you get warnings from gcc when you
compile with -Wmissing-prototypes (which is recommended for developers)).
But you're saying bar() should *not* have a prototype.
-1 on dropping the "void" from the definition. I disagree it is bad form,
and it sets us up for inconsistencies.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4