On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: > > This makes me wonder what the benefit of staying with the C89 specification > instead of the C99 specification. Are there really still compilers in use > that don't implement C99?
Visual C++ didn’t get full C99 support until 2013. Viewed one way, that’s three years old, but viewed another way, that’s just one major version back. Just like with GCC, there are still a lot of teams using older versions of Visual C++ on purpose. That then crates a market effect, so that all libraries that want to see widespread use also need to build on those older versions of Visual C++. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B#C99 https://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
