Alexander Belopolsky writes: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull > <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > > ... On the original question, I > > think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to > > *require* C99. > > Hmm, maybe I should take another look at http://bugs.python.org/issue4805 . > > Note that issue #10359 was not about any real compiler True, but a real compiler has been mentioned in the thread, and I know that every time XEmacs lets a non-C89 feature slip through (most commonly, "//" comments and declarations following non-declarations, the latter being a killer feature in C-like languages IMO, but our current coding standard says "C89") we get build breakage reports.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4