On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 12:46 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Uoti Urpala <[email protected]> writes: > > On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 10:53 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Same goes for a number of other compilers. It's unfortunate, but a > >> small price to pay for portability. > > > > What compilers are those actually? Since this syntax has been used > > without problems they can't be very common ones. > > Ronald already mentioned MSVC. TI's compilers for their DSPs also have > this limitation.
If you include such special-purpose compilers you can probably find one where any particular thing is broken. > > Calling restrictions on basic language syntax "a small price" is > > disingenuous IMO. > > That depends on the restriction. If someone suggested not using > designated initialisers, I'd have them taken out and shot. Variable declarations in for loops are quite basic syntax. You can write code without using them, but it's possible to write code without using pretty much any particular feature. That doesn't mean it would be at all reasonable to require doing it. > > This kind of syntax issues could be automatically handled by a > > conversion wrapper for the deficient compilers. > > Don't be ridiculous. It is in no way ridiculous. Such conversion is technically feasible. It would be a more reasonable and constructive approach to take for the people who choose to use such deficient compilers, instead of asking everyone else to change their code to work around the problems. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
