🚀 go-pugleaf

In the context of this question:
> > > Does the following code require a diagnostic?
> > >     foo() { }
> > >     main() { foo(3); } > 

More than 90 lines of my posting were then quoted to respond to one sentence:
> > I must say it's rather disgusting that none of the compilers Dan tried was
> > was smart and helpful enough to produce the diagnostic anyway -- it would
> > after all be easy enough for them to do so in this case.  

As follows:
> Don't be too unfair to the compiler writers - they're trying to write
> compilers that accept K&R C as well as ISO C. You may not think this is a
> good idea, but there's vast amounts of legacy code with K&R header 
> files out there....

I have no objection to a compiler choosing to *accept* this code, only to
its doing so silently.  Even in K&R1, it was not exactly blessed; page 71
does say that it will be "generally" safe, but the actual definition of
function calls on page 168 makes no such promise.  17 or 18 years have
passed since K&R1 appeared, and I don't believe that silent acceptance
of such code, when the mismatch could easily be diagnosed, is doing
anyone a favor.

(As I said the last time, I withdraw the objection if the compiler is one
intended to be used with a separate lint-type checker.)
-- 
Mark Brader, msb@sq.com             "Constrain your data early and often."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto                      -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

My text in this article is in the public domain.