On 13-08-17 02:12 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
Le 16/08/2013 08:07, Matthew Brush a écrit :
Hi,
Up till now we've tried to stay compatible with ANSI C89 because of GTK+-stack doing so (unless I missed the real reason?).
I propose we update to allowing C99 for the following reasons:
[...]
Hum. Since apparently I'm the only one not to see the point, just do as you wish, I don't want to block development or make people angry just for this. It's just that I don't see what it would benefit us.
So feel free to update our coding rules if you feel like it, but I'd prefer not to see mixed declaration and code or C++-style comments :)
IIUC it's not an "all or nothing", so we could move towards C99 slowly by just accepting such new changes using it or whatever. (I don't think we need to use AC_PROG_C99 or whatever it's called). So just for your maintainer checks would have to use -pedantic -std=c99 as replacement.
Agree about mixed code and declarations. Disagree about // style comments but I think we shouldn't at least disallow in future code (at least "strictly")?
P.S. Patches coming for HACKING for review.
Thanks, Matthew Brush