[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: stdbool dependency?

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: stdbool dependency?
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 17:39:36 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:

> Just out of curiosity, exactly what C99 features do you want?

One that I'd like (and I think Jim would too) is the ability to put
declarations after statements.

> I can understand stdbool, but that one seem easy to simulate.

To be honest, my main objection to recording stdbool is the hassle.
So many modules depend on it.  As far as I know, all the packages that
import gnulib use the stdbool module explicitly.  At some point,
recording the dependencies on stdbool become as annoying as recording
them on onceonly (another dependency we don't record).

The argument that we shouldn't require applications to support C89
will gain strength with time.  It may not be decisive now, but when
combined with the hassle-factor it was enough to change my mind.

If we wanted to be accurate, we would have to complicate our
dependency language.  That is, we might put something like this
in the modules file:

stdbool :- pre-C99

which means "This module depends on stdbool if your application is
supposed to be portable to pre-C99 hosts."  There might be similar
qualifications for POSIX-2001 versus POSIX-2004, GNU versus non-GNU
hosts.  (We could make it as complicated as we like.  Argh.  :-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]