On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Richard Levitte <levi...@openssl.org> wrote: > In message > <cah8yc8mkpw+rex0ka8kcj_oggydvrlgyaxtdfvri1vasx-u...@mail.gmail.com> on Fri, > 25 Mar 2016 14:16:59 -0400, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> said: > > noloader> > Why do you want to be able to build on an OS released in 2012 > with a > noloader> > C89-only compiler? I'm probably missing something, but I'm > struggling to > noloader> > understand the point of this. > noloader> > noloader> I'm not sure what the reason are. But for me, as long as its a claim > noloader> or a requirement, it gets tested to ensure goals are being met. > > An ANSI compiler is not strict requirement, but rather a minimum. > That means we need to refrain from using more modern language features > such as // comments, lambda functions, try/except/failure and the > like.
OK, thanks. Use what you'd like out of the patch, or discard it in its entirety. Its community property, like a wiki article. I expect it to be edited mercilessly. I find the interesting thing to be, when I started at the structure and worked backwards, it made sense. When you and Jeremy started at the macro and worked inwards, it turned things on its head. Sorry about the extra noise. Jeff -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
