On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > 2014-02-27 11:22 GMT+01:00 Kristján Valur Jónsson <krist...@ccpgames.com>: > > Now, Larry Hastings pointed out that we support C89 which doesn’t support > > Inlines. Rather than suggesting here that we update that compatibility > > requirement, > > In practice, recent versions of GCC and Clang are used. On Windows, > it's Visual Studio 2010. I'm pretty sure that these compilers support > inline functions. > > I'm also in favor of using inline functions instead of long macros > using ugly hacks like "instr1,instr2" syntax where instr1 used > assert(). See for example unicodeobject.c to have an idea of what > horrible macros mean. > > I'm in favor of dropping C89 support and require at least C99. There > is now C11, it's time to drop the old C89. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29 The Visual Studio team has publicly stated they will never support C99, so dropping C89 blindly is going to alienate a big part of our user base unless we switch to C++ instead. I'm fine with trying to pull in C99 features, though, that we can somehow support in a backwards-compatible way with VS.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
