steve@basser.oz (Stephen Russell) (12/04/89)
If it's not too late, I'd like to argue _against_ the _PROTOTYPE macro currently being used. While it works fine for examples such as this _PROTOTYPE( int creat, (char *__path, mode_t __mode)); it is not obvious how it will work for functions that return pointers to functions (such as signal(2)) or other wacky types, expect by typedef'ing the function's type. I prefer Earl Chew's format: int creat P((const char *, mode_t)); as it recognises that only the argument list needs special attention. P as the macro name is a poor choice though. How about _ARGS of something else? BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a C prototype generator that can produce the second form of output. If there's enough interest, I'll post it.
cechew@bruce.OZ (Earl Chew) (12/05/89)
From article <2761@basser.oz>, by steve@basser.oz (Stephen Russell): > I prefer Earl Chew's format: > > int creat P((const char *, mode_t)); > > as it recognises that only the argument list needs special attention. > P as the macro name is a poor choice though. How about _ARGS of something > else? I chose P because the stuff wasn't meant to be exported to the rest of the universe. If you were considering putting it in a unversally visible include file, then, I agree, a better name would have to be chosen. Earl -- Earl Chew, Dept of Computer Science, Monash University, Australia 3168 ARPA: cechew%bruce.cs.monash.oz.au@uunet.uu.net ACS : cechew@bruce.oz ----------------------------------------------------------------------