Re: Depending on C99 (Re: GtkBindingSignal changes)

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 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]