On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Edward Berner <e...@bernerfam.com> wrote: > >> Personally, I'd vote for Fossil to remain C89. Specifically I'd like >> Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 on Windows NT 4.0 to continue to be a usable >> target. >> > > As a matter of course, i never explicitly use any C99 features except for > the 2 headers stdint.h and inttypes.h (for fixed-size integers and their > portable printf/scanf modifiers) but those work just when compiling in c89 > mode, assuming your compiler has them. MSVC does not, but there are two > open source projects offering drop-in replacements for these headers for > MSVC. The current prototype code compiles with (-std=c89 -pedantic -Wall > -Werror), but does use those two C99 headers. > > Why not use more modern features? I mean, I would probably not shift my whole codebase to C++11 just yet, but writing new code using C99? Don't all modern compilers support it already? If I was into really bad puns, I would say that "Fossil" is just a name, not a goal. I really am asking this out of interest why anyone would be against C99. Having recently graduated and on my first job, I am very interested in what seems to me to be completely irrational. In the past year I have found that most "irrational" things are really just my lack of experience showing :-) -- ˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
