stylistic prototype question

[Mantorok Redgormor]

What do some of you guys prefer?

static int foo(void);

int main(void)
{
return foo();
}

static int foo(void)
{
return 0;
}
or..

static int foo(void);

int main(void)
{
return foo();
}

int foo(void)
{
return 0;
}

I have been told that if I write code like the latter I'll have my fingers broken

[Mark A. Odell]

ne*****@tokyo.com (Mantorok Redgormor) wrote in
news:41**************************@posting.google.c om:

What do some of you guys prefer?

static int foo(void);

int main(void)
{
return foo();
}

static int foo(void)
{
return 0;
}
or..

static int foo(void);
static here...
int main(void)
{
return foo();
}

int foo(void)
But not here, just plain confusing. {
return 0;
}

I have been told that if I write code like the latter I'll have my
fingers broken

Yes, you will. Why not let the definition be the prototype?

static int foo(void) <--- "Two mints in one" (tm) Wriggly Gum
{
return 0;
}

int main(void)
{
return foo();
}

--
- Mark ->
--

[Mark A. Odell]

"Mark A. Odell" <no****@embeddedfw.com> wrote in
news:Xn********************************@130.133.1. 4:

static int foo(void) <--- "Two mints in one" (tm) Wriggly Gum

Or was that Life Savers?

--
- Mark ->
--

[Artie Gold]

Mark A. Odell wrote:

"Mark A. Odell" <no****@embeddedfw.com> wrote in
news:Xn********************************@130.133.1. 4:

static int foo(void) <--- "Two mints in one" (tm) Wriggly Gum

Or was that Life Savers?

Certs.

(Well, at least it *starts* with a `C'.)

<g,d&r>
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
Oh, for the good old days of regular old SPAM.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 29 Oct 2003 22:36:45 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Mark A. Odell"
<no****@embeddedfw.com> wrote:

Yes, you will. Why not let the definition be the prototype? static int foo(void) <--- "Two mints in one" (tm) Wriggly Gum

Yeah, but this means writing your code *backwards*.

In the Good Old Days we had to do that, but now we're all growed up
and are awwowed to use pwototypes all by arselves. So the code can we
in any order put, hmm? Good, this is.

Back to the the main point - your prototype should match your
definition. So broken fingers might well be meted out for the original
posting.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark A. Odell]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:qt********************************@4ax.com:

Yes, you will. Why not let the definition be the prototype?

static int foo(void) <--- "Two mints in one" (tm) Wriggly Gum

Yeah, but this means writing your code *backwards*.

So putting the pieces in front of the "thing" that will use them is
backwards is it? Interesting point of view.
In the Good Old Days we had to do that, but now we're all growed up
and are awwowed to use pwototypes all by arselves. So the code can we
in any order put, hmm? Good, this is.

So in the good new days, it's better to keep two things synchronized?
Besides I did use a prototype - a definition is also a prototype.

--
- Mark ->
--