Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> We could just mandate C99, more generally.
>>
>> /me goes and hides in a bush.
> It's hard to believe that would cost much.
I think we have done that, piece by piece, where it was actually buying us
something. In particular we've gradually moved the goalposts for *printf
compliance, and I'm proposing here to move them a bit further. I'm not
sure what "we're going to insist on C99" even means concretely, given
this position ...
> Personally, I'd prefer to
> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of
> variables and code on grounds of style and readability.
... which I agree with.
> But it's kind
> of difficult to believe that we really need to worry about people
> still running 20-year old compilers very much.
Sure. It's been a long time since anybody worried about those as
optimization targets, for instance. Still, I'm not in favor of
actively breaking compatibility unless it buys us something.
regards, tom lane
