Re: [PATCH - Cosmetic] Removal of Old-Style Function Definitions

[Paul Eggert]

"Joseph D. Wagner" <address@hidden> writes:

>> Also, I'd start with the latest versions of the source.
>
> That was taken from sed 4.1.4.  Is there a newer version?

That's the latest stable version.  The CVS version has evolved since
then.

>> You might take a look at "gettext" rather than worrying about "sed".
>
> The code I patched was taken from sed, so if the code was patched in gettext, 
> that patch didn't roll over into sed.

Yes, it's quite possible that happened.  But at any rate I wouldn't
worry about patching the sed code by hand.  Most likely the gettext
stuff will simply be removed from sed entirely, as the usual tradition
nowadays is to not include gettext source in distributions other than
gettext itself.