Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:46:46 +0200 From: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <49FAE126.5050903@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <49FAB3D8.90607@elischer.org> References: <20090428114754.GB89235@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20090430.090226.1569754707.imp@bsdimp.com> <20090430233648.GA95360@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <20090430.183727.803597558.imp@bsdimp.com> <49FA8E88.1040905@gmx.de> <49FAB3D8.90607@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer schrieb:
> Christoph Mallon wrote:
>> No, this is not what I intended. The idea is to limit the scope of
>> local variables as much as is sensible. Maybe I should have been more
>> explicit. On the other hand, I also did not mention that it is just
>> about moving to the start of inner block statements.
>
> I can see moving declarations to an inner scope {} in some cases but
> I think allowing us to declare them mixed in with the code,
> (even though some compilers allow it) will be a mistake.
Some compilers? According to my information every compiler, which is
even remotely relevant, supports it. Even PCC claims it does!
The only compiler, which I am aware of and which has a relevant
distribution, which doesn't support it, is MSVC - but I highly doubt,
that it is relevant in any way for FreeBSD.
> I think this was done to allow macros to declare vars they needed.
> I'd hate to see it in our code..
You are accusing me for proposing changes because "I felt like it", but
all you give is "I'd hate [...] it" and "[it] will be a mistake" without
any further justification. It seems to me, that you're applying double
standards. /:
Christoph
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49FAE126.5050903>