Hi Mark, On 2026-05-28T14:43:21-0700, Mark Harris wrote: > > > My view was always that they were the simplest expression of the > > > interface that the widest possible audience could understand, and > > > that seems to align with Michael's view. > > > > That doesn't provide much value, IMHO. My opinion of the SYNOPSIS is > > that it's a quick reminder of how a function should be used. > > I suggest a compromise. Keep the array sizes, which are the part that > you claim adds value, and drop the forward declarations, which are the > part that confuses people. So for example: > > ssize_t read(int fd, void buf[count], size_t count); > > Yes, count is used before its definition, but the goal is not to write > a valid function declaration; the existing one being invalid is > evidence of that. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would have > trouble finding the definition of count without a forward declaration, > unless they are a compiler in which case they would also be tripped up > by the array-of-void. I considered doing that some time ago. I am worried about something: it might "work" if you're unlucky. Let's say a relatively new programmer sees this and thinks it's valid C. And let's say it tries it in their own code, which may have a variable in scope (most likely, a global one) named 'count'. extern int count; ssize_t read(int fd, void buf[count], size_t count); That's going to compile, but it's not what you'd expect. That's why I originally used [.count] notation. That one if free from this problem. However, GCC maintainers convinced me of using some syntax that is valid C (at least in the GNU dialect of it, which is the majoritary one anyway). Have a lovely night! Alex --