Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:56 +0200:
> What /I/ don't understand is why we're even having a discussion about
> using // comments. Is it really that hard to type two extra chars per
> comment, especially since any sane programming editor will add the
> delimiters in for you anyway?
> If the discussion were about more interesting features such as
> *restrict*ed pointers or mixed statements and variable declaration or
> *for*-scope variable declarations, that'd make some sense. But talking
> about just "C90 + //" is, IMO, a waste of time.
About //-comments specifically, my thinking was that if we supported such
comments we wouldn't run into "//-comments v. /**/-comments" conflicts
when updating our embedded utf8proc.
But to your wider point, I agree, //-comments aren't _the_ most
pressing C99 feature we might wish to adopt. I was just trying to take
a "one step at a time" approach. So, can we switch from C89 to C89 +
any single C99 feature? E.g., C89 + <one of the features you just named>.
Received on 2017-09-24 22:05:42 CEST