Those guys are amazing. How much more toxic can they be?? I am really
suspicious of their "sponsorship" with the linux fondation. I don't think they
did grant a exFAT/FAT64 free patent use for all linux users... (event though on
most digital cameras, the 'official' file system of SDCards is
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 08:11:57PM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Expect POSIX to add significant technical cost over time, like ISO, ANSI,
> the most monstruous being the w3c.
You ever try to write POSIX utilities according to the standard? Believe
me, POSIX of all standards doesn't
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 03:56, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
Consistency, -- we only want one way of comments in code, as with
everything else.
A big warning: a "standard" is not anymore sufficient. Look at the microsoft
xml document format at ISO.
It means the corporations which have an interest at making file formats
complex in order to kill any light software implementation alternative _will go
through standard bodies_. Look at what
Hello Martin,
> The coding style says:
>
> > Use /* */ for comments, not //
>
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
>
> I've always preferred // since they can nest (you can
> > The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers
> > appear to be behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn???t want
> > to use a newer c feature other than compatibility?
>
> it's always about weighing convenience against freedom. Modern language
> standards have picked
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 08:46:51 -0500
stephen Turner wrote:
Dear Stephen,
> The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers
> appear to be behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn’t want
> to use a newer c feature other than compatibility?
it's always about weighing
The only issue I see with c99 code is that some of the compilers appear to be
behind the times on c. Any reason why we wouldn’t want to use a newer c feature
other than compatibility?
Thanks,
Stephen
On Jan 10, 2019, at 4:27 AM, David Demelier wrote:
Le 27/12/2018 à 11:10, Silvan Jegen a
Le 27/12/2018 à 11:10, Silvan Jegen a écrit :
The only downside of //-style comments that I can
see is that they are only allowed since C99[0].
Yes, but C99 was released 20 years ago. Perhaps it's okay to use it
nowadays :)
Regards,
--
David
One is enough. As it should have been for loop constructs.
--
Sylvain
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 3:57 AM Martin Tournoij wrote:
>
> The coding style says:
>
> > Use /* */ for comments, not //
>
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
My understanding is
[2018-12-27 08:01] Cág
> Silvan Jegen wrote:
>
> > I also prefer // (mostly because to insert those I can just do a block
> > insert in vim/vis). The only downside of //-style comments that I can
> > see is that they are only allowed since C99[0].
> >
> > Maybe I am missing something too though.
That is a rather bold sentiment.
At uni the attitude is opposite - I actually saw home assignments
stating "remember to use many comments to make the code more
readable".
I actually agree with you; there is much less clutter if the comments
don't duplicate that which is already communicated
Silvan Jegen wrote:
I also prefer // (mostly because to insert those I can just do a block
insert in vim/vis). The only downside of //-style comments that I can
see is that they are only allowed since C99[0].
Maybe I am missing something too though.
I use vi[0] and have this in my .exrc:
map
Hi
[2018-12-27 17:27] Martin Tournoij
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, at 08:46, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> > // is not ANSI.
>
> Is there a good reason for sticking with ANSI C? It's my understanding
> that even most small/minimal compilers support C99 (or most of it)?
>
> The coding style document even
Hi
[2018-12-27 00:56] Martin Tournoij
> The coding style says:
>
> > Use /* */ for comments, not //
>
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
>
> I've always preferred // since they
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, at 08:46, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> // is not ANSI.
Is there a good reason for sticking with ANSI C? It's my understanding
that even most small/minimal compilers support C99 (or most of it)?
The coding style document even endorses it: "Use C99 without extensions
(ISO/IEC
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM wrote:
> Preprocessor. I guess having 2 ways to define comments is not significant,
> then better stick to one and the historical one.
Better than one way is zero ways -- comments are not semantically
significant, so rather than argue about which
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:56:29AM +1300, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> The coding style says:
>
> > Use /* */ for comments, not //
>
> Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
> disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
> long time?
>
> I've
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:56:29AM +1300, Martin Tournoij wrote:
> ... AFAIK all compilers accept // these days ...
Preprocessor. I guess having 2 ways to define comments is not significant,
then better stick to one and the historical one.
--
Sylvain
The coding style says:
> Use /* */ for comments, not //
Don't want to start a discussion about it, but I'm curious why // is
disallowed? AFAIK all compilers accept // these days, and have for a
long time?
I've always preferred // since they can nest (you can comment out a
function with //-style
21 matches
Mail list logo
