[PATCH RFC] PARAMS elimination - phase 2

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:23:53 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
> If you look carefully, you'll
> notice that there are a few places where other fields within a struct
> declaration have been reformatted.  I was torn between putting these
> fields back the way they were prior to running indent and leaving them
> in their newly indented state.  In the end I chose the latter option
> of leaving them in their newly indented state.
[snip]
> -void (*target_overlay_update) PARAMS ((struct obj_section *))
> -= simple_overlay_update;
> +void (*target_overlay_update) (struct obj_section *) = simple_overlay_update;
[snip]
> -static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol PARAMS
> -  ((struct partial_symtab *, const char *,
> -    int, namespace_enum));
> +static struct partial_symbol *lookup_partial_symbol
> +  (struct partial_symtab *, const char *, int, namespace_enum);
[snip]
> -    struct target_ops
> -     *DONT_USE;			/* formerly to_next */
> +    struct target_ops *DONT_USE;	/* formerly to_next */

The above are a few of the examples of such a gratuitous
reformatting.  I think they are evil and should be avoided at all
costs.  They make it a PITA to apply patches sent by people who have
sources before the reformatting.  Introducing changes that merely
reshuffle white space really doesn't make sense to me.

I vote against those whitespace changes (even though these are not
files I'm responsible for).