On 22.09.2017 13:18, Julian Foad wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> When we released Subversion 1.0 in 2004, we were still thinking we had
>> better not use C'90 because it was only 14 years old and, you know,
>> people need to be able to compile svn on systems of a reasonable age.
>> So we had a "strict C'89" policy. No "//" comments, for example.
>> Now C'99 is 18 years old and C'90 is, ahem, 27 years old. Does anybody
>> else feel like we're trapped in the dark ages? The only reason not to
>> upgrade is our personal fear of "rocking the boat", it seems to me.
>> Let's just do it?
>> I know there is a problem with Microsoft not supporting C'99. C'90
>> should be fine though, and some of C'99 if we want to.
> Oops, I misremembered that C89==C90, while C99 is the one that brings new features.
> And Brane is pointing out on IRC lots of difficulties...
Yes, we've had this discussion before, and the difficulties remain. :)
Received on 2017-09-22 13:29:35 CEST