>i'm not asking for C11, though if we wanted MH to attract new users >rather than just serving a declining/graying population, we would >embrace the hell out of C11.
Really? I kind of view those things are orthogonal. I don't think users really care too much about the language revision you're using; they care about features provided. Which admittedly we're not so great on, but I think we're getting better. We could switch nmh to F66 and if we had improved MIME support I think everyone would be happy. Well, other than it might be hard to FIND a F66 compiler nowadays and we might face a revolt just on principal from some of the greybeards here, but you get the idea :-) But if you think our reliance on C89 is holding us back, please, elaborate! I think we've pushed pretty hard on POSIX as a minimum and I think that's been for the best for us. I looked at the C11 Wikipedia page, and I do see a few things that might help us (like improved Unicode support), but I don't think those are showstoppers for any proposed work. >with the quality and maturity of the MH core team, both in what they >write and what they review, i am totally unconcerned about the usual >problems that come with midlevel programmers encountering threads in >their first large system. so, you're right in general, but who cares in >this specific case? Assuming I'm part of the MH core team (I'm not sure exactly WHO is on it), thanks for the vote of confidence, Paul! But I think on further reflection I'll stick with the simple lock/sleep/retry cycle. It just seems like adding a dependency on threads just for this small bit of code (which I suspect will rarely be invoked in the real world) just seems like too much complexity for any possible efficiency gains. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
