On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan2_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On 24.09.2017 23:03, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 24.09.2017 22:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:56 +0200:
> *for*-scope variable declarations, that'd make some sense. But talking
>>>> about just "C90 + //" is, IMO, a waste of time.
Right. "Change the accepted set of compiles so we can use // comments" ...
> 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.
Seems like the real question is related to utf8proc, rather than comment
> The problem with the feature cherry-picking approach is that we don't
>> have a reliable way for compilers to warn about when /other/ features
>> except the blessed ones appear in the code.
>> If we want to take the Great Leap Forward, I'd prefer to just move to
>> C99 lock, stock and barrel instead. That would likely cause problems to
>> some of our downstream users, however.
> I fully agree with Brane on this.
> Another thing that has popped up in the past and that I, personally,
> would love to see happening is supporting C++ inside our libs. I think
> that would have it made easier to me, using wrapper classes / templates
> with appropriate operator overloading, to migrate code from one API /
> data structure to another.
Yeah. It would be great to start using some C++ within include/private/,
and the implementing modules.
It is difficult to see how we could place any C++ into our public API,
however. And yeah, I know you didn't mention that. :-)
> However, that move too, would create all sorts of compatibility issues
> with rules to address them and all for a limited increase in coding
Right. Like /*..*/ comments versus //
Received on 2017-10-01 11:38:20 CEST