Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:49:19 -0700 (MST) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: paul@originative.co.uk Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: c99/c++ localised variable definition Message-ID: <20050128.114919.71097322.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050128173327.GI61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> References: <20050128173327.GI61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So, are we going to start allowing this feature to be used in FreeBSD > since it would require a pretty major change to style(9). People differ as to the efficacy of such usage. Either they love it and can't understand why people wouldn't want to see definitions close to where they are used. Or they hate it and can't understand why you'd want to go searching for a definition when the one, true, god-given place is at the top of the function. Often times, no further discourse is possible because both sides know they are right, and the other side is a bunch of butt picking monekys that clearly should get out of the stone age... > I noticed when trying to use this feature that we're not running > the compiler with c99 fully supported yet so I guess that's perhaps > the first step to discuss. That's a reasonable thing to try to do, but it also opens up a number of side issues. We have already seen a taste of this in the WARNS=x efforts where people make it warns friendly to c99, only to discover that the system default is c89 and the fixes cause warnings/errors. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050128.114919.71097322.imp>