On 24/09/2017 22:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > 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. > [...] > > 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>. > This was exactly my thinking as well - i.e. to make a step towards using more C99-features. As you, brane, rightfully pointed out there would hardly have been a point to discuss the matter, if it was just for the sake of the //-comment-usage.
But I see that there's some reluctance to make this step, and while I'd certainly would appreciate us moving ahead, I personally also don't see that much an urge to use C99-features atm. Hence, I'll leave the idea rested now. Regards, Stefan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
