At 2023-03-12T19:36:50+0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 18:50 G. Branden Robinson < > g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good enough for me! I used <stdint.h> because groff's application > > of C++ is 30 years old, and has not yet transitioned to the new > > inclusion style. (I'd have done so, but I haven't looked up > > precisely what the ramifications of that are, and didn't want to fix > > something that wasn't operationally broken. Maybe for groff 1.24.) > > > > I'd ask you to not do that. The <c*> headers don't buy you much, and > instead adds more divergence from C. BTW, the C++ committee is > considering undeprecating the C headers, since realistically they'll > need to be supported basically forever.
My understanding of the future status quo (from occasional browsing of the WG14 Document Log[1], I think) is that the <c*> headers will continue to be preferred for "C++ mode" compilation, but that the old <*.h> form is acceptable (or required) for stuff inside extern "C". But there is time both for this issue to settle out and for me to be corrected on the point; such a refactor is not high on my priority list. Regards, Branden [1] https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/sc22/wg14/www/wg14_document_log.htm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
