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/