-1 portability is VERY important if we want to use vala outside gnu/linux.
I understand your point of view (the whole idea of sticking to glib as a layer between vala and everything else is good). I'd then propose to create c99 bindings: c99.vapi or something. It would not be portable, just as such apis like posix aren't. Complex numbers would not be part of vala language. But you would not have to use mpfr to get the functionality that is available at the language level for 10 years. On the other hand, again: I personally think that the whole idea of sticking to glib as a layer between vala and everything else is good; the idea of maintaining glib compatibility with 20-years old tools is awful (well, that should go to the glib list). Compatibility? icc: supports c99 rvct: yes, but without complex numbers (in version 3, I don't know what about 4, but I hope that this will be implemented) openwatcom: work in progress I don't want to start a flamewar here, but if by "portability" you mean "compiling with microsoft compiler", I can not agree with this. From my point of view, you just can not create a good, modern product using non-modern tools. Not to mention that microsoft support for C language is... unclear. I did not touch visual studio for a year, but in the last version that I've seen there were no C compiler at all, only C++. Well, these were my 2 pennies. best regards, -- Mój klucz publiczny o identyfikatorze 1024D/E12C5A4C znajduje się na serwerze hkp://keys.gnupg.net My public key with signature 1024D/E12C5A4C is on the server hkp://keys.gnupg.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature