On Fri 15 Jul 2016 19:41, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> (2) Can we use C99 in our public interface, or just internally? If we >> use it publically, what should we change? No more scm_t_uint8 I >> hope, besides for back-compat? This patch set does not have to >> include these changes, but we should have a plan. > > Good question! Since Emacs 25 requires C99, I think it's reasonable for > us to also require C99 *internally*, but whether we can reasonably > assume C99 in our public headers is far less clear. Existing programs > that include <libguile.h> might have conflicting requirements for the C > dialect options passed to the compiler. Even if there's no conflict, > developers may resent being asked to change their C dialect options. > > Thoughts?
Yeah I dunno :) I suppose requiring stdint.h would be possible though without requiring support for new language features. So that's an intermediate point. Since building against Guile 2.2 is an opt-in thing (with parallel installation and all), I think at some point it's reasonable to say "you can stay with Guile 2.0, but if you upgrade you need to support a C standard released within the last 20 years" :) That point may be now; not sure. Andy
