On 09. 02. 22 4:39, h.vetin...@gmx.com wrote:
Maybe a more practical approach would be to use C99 "except of
features not supported by MSVC of Visual Studio 2019"?
This could be formulated in a more neutral way by saying
"C99 without the things that became optional in C11", or perhaps
That sounds like a better wording!
"C11 without optional features" (at least from the POV of MSVC,
haven't checked the other compilers/platforms for C11-compliance).
That's an interesting idea -- what's keeping us from C11?
In other words: the main thing keeping us from C99 is MSVC support, and
since that compiler apparently skipped C99, should we skip it as well?
In practice, we can try to support VS 2017, the version currently
recommended by the devguide:
That is becoming dated quickly, as Microsoft has deprecated, and is removing,
that version quite rapidly from their CI services (azure/GHA), i.e. mid March,
see:
https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/4312.
It's understandable in the sense that they don't want to support a third version
in addition to vs2022 and vs2019, but the net effect is that very few (open
source)
projects will keep using vs2017 going forward.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IIZ6LXK2MANUHZAMYSXDF5KPF3VIRKDJ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ERQQFXNAGANR2ND3SRDVCIQZKYTT6OBM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
