Alexander Belopolsky writes: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > > ... On the original question, I > > think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to > > *require* C99. > > Hmm, maybe I should take another look at http://bugs.python.org/issue4805 . > > Note that issue #10359 was not about any real compiler
True, but a real compiler has been mentioned in the thread, and I know that every time XEmacs lets a non-C89 feature slip through (most commonly, "//" comments and declarations following non-declarations, the latter being a killer feature in C-like languages IMO, but our current coding standard says "C89") we get build breakage reports. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
