Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

["SourceForge.net" <noreply AT sourceforge.net>]

Patches item #1781994, was opened at 2007-08-26 05:19
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jakin44
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: Jason Kivlighn (jakin44)
Date: 2007-08-28 12:42

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=1625120
Originator: NO

Getting rid of c++ comments is a clear OK.  Getting rid of mixed
declarations and statements couldn't hurt (although I agree, it's lame and
annoying that there are still compilers out there that haven't gotten their
act together).

I'm unsure of using alloca().  I'm not all that familiar with it, but it
sounds like it's discouraged and has many buggy implementations.  I'd
prefer to use malloc() instead.  ll_new_license_chooser is typically only
called once during the entire session, so we're not looking at a
significant performance hit allocating on the heap verses the stack.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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