about void voids (Re: efopen.c)

[guido at boring.UUCP]

In article <1594 at hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy writes:
>What doesn't make sense is having a combination of compiler and lint
>where one knows about void and the other doesn't.
>(Sure it's *possible*, but WHY?)

Well, for one thing, there need be only one lint, but there must be as
many compilers as there are machines.  For instance, I have a program which
runs on the IBM-PC and is compiled there by a native compiler; to lint it,
it use the lint on our 4.2BSD VAX, which is perfectly happy when you give
it access to the PC's include files (and maybe add -Uunix -Uvax to the command
line if the program has #ifdef unix or #ifdef vax lines in it).

Lint's effect is (should be) independent of the machine; it checks static
errors and portability issues, so there's no reason to match it to a
particular compiler you're using (this will also teach compiler writers
not to add non-standard syntax to the language, one of my major gripes against
some Macintosh C compilers!).

Please, no flames about there being no standard; that's being worked on.
-- 
	Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido at mcvax.UUCP)