🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <awiner-1909952245190001@awiner-mac2.us.oracle.com>,
awiner@oracle.com (Adam Winer) writes: 
|> Are identifiers in definitions required?  That is, is

Yes, what else would a definition define?

|> the following code legit:
|> 
|> int foo(int /* a */, int b);

No. But this is not a definition (so this is unrelated to your first
question.)

|> 
|> int foo(int /* a */, int b)

This is not allowed either.

|> {
|>   /* do some stuff, obviously without using a */
|> }
|> 
|> Our compiler (CodeWarrior on the Macintosh) admits this
|> without a complaint, and it's very handy for removing unused

The code _requires_ a diagnostic if compiled by a conformant compiler. Check
that you have set your compiler in that mode, and not for something like C++
etc.

|> argument warnings in a very explicit manner, but I'd
|> obviously be unable to use it in portable code if it were
|> ruled out by the standard.

Cheers
Tanmoy
-- 
tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87544-0285,USA H:#3,802,9 St,NM87545
Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
<http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
fax: 1 (505) 665 3003   voice: 1 (505) 665 4733    [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]