On 22.09.2017 13:18, Julian Foad wrote: > 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... > > :-(
Yes, we've had this discussion before, and the difficulties remain. :) -- Brane
