> Does anyone object to allowing this change to the coding style now > that it's no longer a hard requirement for OpenBSD's ports?
I haven't yet seen what this is in response to. But the Subject: makes it appear that this is talking about accepting declaration-after-statements code. If so, I think I object a bit, though of course that may not mean much. It was, I think, less than a month ago I had to fix something - I don't recall what - that had declaration-amid-statements code in order to get it to build. Naturally, whether my still using such compilers constitutes an argument for x.org to continue sticking to that version of C is something I can't really comment on. (It will significantly raise the effort which would be required for me to build x.org X; whether x.org cares about that is the question. It's not something I've done except as part of a NetBSD build, so it's not clear it really makes any pragmatic difference. Now, at least.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
