Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: code style - my take
From: TP Diffenbach (rockbox_at_diffenbach.org)
If you (/i.e/., the Rockbox developers as a group) want to maintain a style, that's all the justification necessary.
But I'm not sure that maintaining backwards compatibility with older gcc versions is that necessary -- it's not as if gcc is expensive or hard to find.
I'm suggesting C99 because it offers advantages over C89 (or so I assume; the Standard Committee members aren't exactly script kiddies).
And because, <sarcasm> like GW Bush </sarcasm>, I'm a "uniter not a divider": it seems C99 might satisfy some of those patch developers who want what it provides, while still maintaining strict and clear boundries that are clearly C and not C++ or proprietary extensions (ok, reading the Standard might not be easy, but it's pretty strict about what's defined and what's not).
Admittedly, I have a bias: I'm a C++ coder, and I've drunk the Kool-Aid about it being usable as a "better C".
Quoting Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, TP Diffenbach wrote:
-- Archos FM needs a Rockbox!
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew