On 24/09/2017 22:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> 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.
> 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>.
This was exactly my thinking as well - i.e. to make a step towards using
more C99-features. As you, brane, rightfully pointed out there would
hardly have been a point to discuss the matter, if it was just for the
sake of the //-comment-usage.
But I see that there's some reluctance to make this step, and while I'd
certainly would appreciate us moving ahead, I personally also don't see
that much an urge to use C99-features atm. Hence, I'll leave the idea
Received on 2017-09-26 09:49:40 CEST