On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 12:01 +0100, Tim Janik wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > >> Thats a gcc extension/C99 addition though. We use [1] in other places > >> where flexible arrays are used. > > > > Oh, I imagine there must be good reasons (read: already debated to > > death) for not taking advantage of C99 improvements. Sorry. > > no, it actually hasn't as far as i know. and i think it makes sense to > at least start discussing this possibility. To me, the benefits of C99 aren't that compelling ... there are certainly some midly nice features (named structure member initializers come to mind), but they generally won't enhance the end-product; they won't make GTK+ any faster or easier to program with. What do you see as the important gains we'd get? The main reason requiring C99 might be that most or all of the developers are now using C99 compilers and aren't able to catch slip-ups. It's hard to support something that we don't test with. In terms of the impact on people compiling GTK+, I'd be interested in hearing from the people at "The Written Word", who compile GTK+ across a pretty big range of older platforms; is Albert Chin listening? Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part