On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As explained: because it makes it impossible for users running old systems
with pre-C99 compilers to build gcc and thereby excludes them from the world
of free software, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.
Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
questioning Paul why he said: "I consider rejecting mixed
code/declarations to be a feature" because it seems that if he could
use mixed code/declarations, he wouldn't. I just asked why? Now, as I
said, I understand gcc restriction and in my gcc code I surely adhere
to it.
The benefit of saving three keypresses is outweighed (for the FSF's goals)
by the disadvantage of excluding a whole category of potential
users/contributors.
I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
containing //, but my question was more directed to Paul view. :)
> in a one line comments, using /* */ is just horrid! :)
That's a purely religious opinion!
Yes, it is. I'm religiously simplistic, best-language agnostic and god atheist!
You might find it interesting to browse the gnu coding standards
(http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/) and the additional standards specific to
gcc (http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html), since much of what we have
discussed is explained there along with the rationale that justifies the
decisions.
I'll look into it .
Things won't stay like this forever, and at some point we'll undoubtedly
decide that it's no longer necessary to stay backwardly compatible all that
far back, and start using C99 features (and beyond that, we may at sometime
start using C++ in the compiler core). It's a purely practical matter of
ensuring gcc is accessible to the greatest possible number of people.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK
