consistency in declaration

[Eric Giguere]

Alright, it would seem I'm outvoted on this parm-list-with-and-without-IDs
discussion.... maybe I'll suggest to my boss that we support it, but I think
we have other more important things to worry about.  Then again, we never
claim anywhere in our docs to be completely ANSI-compatible, only that we
support most of the draft proposed Standard... we've always hesitated to use
the phrase "ANSI-compatible" when there is no such thing (officially) yet
and the draft kept changing... Remember the good ol' "noalias" keyword
a couple of drafts back?  I know of at least one compiler (hint: it also
comes out of Waterloo) that supported it... then the Committee took it out.
Ooops!  Well, it's not as if that would break existing code or anything.
So for now I guess I would just label the whole mess as an "unsupported
feature" and leave it at that.

Eric Giguere                                  268 Phillip St #CL-46
For the curious: it's French ("jee-gair")     Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 6G9
Bitnet  : GIGUERE at WATCSG                   (519) 746-6565
Internet: giguere at aries5.UWaterloo.ca         "Nothing but urges from HELL!!"