IMP, C89 is simple enough and reliable. Though it is old. it is wildly supported.
On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:22 AM, David Soria Parra <d...@php.net> wrote: > On 2014-07-25, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: >> >> On 25 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think the main question here is whether MSVC will have good C99 support >>> by the time PHP-Next is released. The other major compilers (GCC, Clang, >>> Intel) may not support all of C99 (esp stuff like FP pragmas), but have a >>> reasonable degree of support. >>> >>> If we can, I'd be very much in favor of using C99. In particular mixed >>> code+declarations is a major code quality improvement to me. >> >> Well, we don’t need to allow all of C99. We can simply allow using features >> that are widely supported and actually useful. For example, declarations >> between statements, and C++-style line comments with //. >> >> Though for consistency with the rest of the codebase, perhaps we should >> stick to C-style /* */ comments. > > It is hard to judge what "widely supported" means. PHP is so widespread > that people run it on embedded systems, 10+ year old servers (see old > masters.php.net) and compile them with compiler most of us have never > touched (suncc, pcc). > > I think we have to come up with good arguments for C99 support that we just > can't do with C89 in order to potentially keep out people. > > tl;dr: I believe unless we have strong arguments we should acknowkledge that > PHP > is so widespread that changing compiler can make some users unhappy and if we > don't have really good reasons we shouldn't. > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
