weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (07/08/88)
I really like the "return xx" vs "return(xx)" issue. But, hey, you get to choose. What I want to know is when the illegality of "i=++j" or the old-fashioned syntax default of "s=*++t" and "m=--n" is going to go away. Is this just a cloying Berkeleyism? Will ANSI C make a difference, or is the weight of tons of old-fashioned code going to decide matters? It can't be too difficult to put in a "-pg40" compiler flag, meaning "pro- grammer is under 40 years old, and doesn't care to hear about how all the overgrown hippies programmed once upon time", or something to that effect. If I wanted a language where I had to put extra blanks around operators, I'd program in COBOL. (And no, I'm not a reformed APL hacker.) ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/09/88)
In article <11812@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >What I want to know is when the illegality of "i=++j" or the old-fashioned >syntax default of "s=*++t" and "m=--n" is going to go away. Is this just >a cloying Berkeleyism? Yes. AT&T C compilers stopped supporting the =op form years ago. >Will ANSI C make a difference, or is the weight of tons of old-fashioned >code going to decide matters? I believe there aren't many C compilers other than ones derived from the old version of PCC that Berkeley shipped that still support =op. ANSI C simply canonicalizes actual modern practice; I doubt that it will much affect the rate at which =op vanishes, except perhaps that as Standard conformance is required in future procurements more old code will end up finally getting fixed.
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (07/09/88)
>In article <11812@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) asks whether `=op' operators are >>just a cloying Berkeleyism? In article <8227@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >Yes. AT&T C compilers stopped supporting the =op form years ago. 4BSD stopped (a) year ago. They are gone in 4.3BSD-tahoe. Those programs that used them (Berkeley Pascal, struct) have been fixed. Old-fashioned initialisations are gone too. No more erroneous recovery (and corresponding error cascade) from int f(x) imt x; { ... -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris