Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:56 +0200: > What /I/ don't understand is why we're even having a discussion about > using // comments. Is it really that hard to type two extra chars per > comment, especially since any sane programming editor will add the > delimiters in for you anyway? > > If the discussion were about more interesting features such as > *restrict*ed pointers or mixed statements and variable declaration or > *for*-scope variable declarations, that'd make some sense. But talking > about just "C90 + //" is, IMO, a waste of time.
About //-comments specifically, my thinking was that if we supported such comments we wouldn't run into "//-comments v. /**/-comments" conflicts when updating our embedded utf8proc. But to your wider point, I agree, //-comments aren't _the_ most pressing C99 feature we might wish to adopt. I was just trying to take a "one step at a time" approach. So, can we switch from C89 to C89 + any single C99 feature? E.g., C89 + <one of the features you just named>. Cheers, Daniel
