Julian Foad wrote: > When we released Subversion 1.0 in 2004, we were still thinking we had > better not use C'90 because it was only 14 years old and, you know, > people need to be able to compile svn on systems of a reasonable age. > > So we had a "strict C'89" policy. No "//" comments, for example. > > Now C'99 is 18 years old and C'90 is, ahem, 27 years old. Does anybody > else feel like we're trapped in the dark ages? The only reason not to > upgrade is our personal fear of "rocking the boat", it seems to me. > > Let's just do it? > > I know there is a problem with Microsoft not supporting C'99. C'90 > should be fine though, and some of C'99 if we want to.
Oops, I misremembered that C89==C90, while C99 is the one that brings new features. And Brane is pointing out on IRC lots of difficulties... :-( - Julian
