cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools
List archive
[cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi
- From: "SourceForge.net" <noreply AT sourceforge.net>
- To: noreply AT sourceforge.net
- Subject: [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:28:58 -0700
Patches item #1781994, was opened at 2007-08-26 05:19
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kidproto
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=559968&aid=1781994&group_id=80503
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: liblicense
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Peter Miller (pmiller)
Assigned to: Scott Shawcroft (tannewt)
Summary: liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi
Initial Comment:
This change set increases the portability of the C code - to compilers other
than GCC - by avoiding post-1989 features of the C language definition. Yes:
18 years later and they STILL haven't caught up.
I haven't committed this to my repo yet, I'd like to know what folks think.
Personally, I'd rather be coding in C++, where mixed declarations and
statements are OK. They make a lot of sense. Problem is that most compilers
except GCC are, well, behind the times.
The no-c++ comments thing is important programmer psychology. It provides
the reader with an almost subliminal clue that they are dealing with C, and
not anything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Jon Phillips (kidproto)
Date: 2007-08-28 12:28
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=914868
Originator: NO
Go for it...pmiller can commit to!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Scott Shawcroft (tannewt)
Date: 2007-08-28 12:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1634298
Originator: NO
Looks good. Compiler portability is not something I've dealt with so I'll
take your word for it. Shall I commit it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=559968&aid=1781994&group_id=80503
-
[cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi,
SourceForge.net, 08/26/2007
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/26/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
- [cc-devel] [ cctools-Patches-1781994 ] liblicense.0.4 - gcc -ansi, SourceForge.net, 08/28/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.