In message <[email protected]> on Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:24:59 -0600, "Matthew D. Fuller" <[email protected]> said:
fullermd> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:45:32PM -0500 I heard the voice of fullermd> Stefan Monnier, and lo! it spake thus: fullermd> > > fair conformance to C89. What systems do we care about that don't fullermd> > > have reasonably competent C99 support? fullermd> > fullermd> > "C99 support" is unclear: e.g., AFAIK, gcc doesn't fully support fullermd> > C99, tho it has supported many parts of it for quite a while. fullermd> fullermd> Well, hence "reasonably competent", rather than "complete" :) Total fullermd> support is fairly uncommon in any mainstream compilers. I have zero problems with the thought of "upgrading" to a more modern standard. Also, if it is important to keep support for uncommong things (such as a 16-bit int), it's not really difficult to have a set of support macros that do things differently based on, say, sizeof(int). I foresee no real C99 problems on platforms like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread (VMS, ...) fullermd> In contrast, a lack of that fairly common subset would be fullermd> more expected in obsolescent systems (AIXV3, say). fullermd> Clarifying how much real pain drawing the line in various fullermd> places causes actual users is what I want to draw out here. Another view is to simply start working on it, and fix the introduced limitations of someone screams... Personally, I have an additional desire, and it's to check against things like ICCCM and make additions to comply. Those two things could very well be goals for version 4.0 Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish
