Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > >> Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: >>> Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: >>>> I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that, >>>> but since coreutils proper has been using decl-after-stmt, >>>> for so long, I let it slide. >>> >>> How does that work? Do most compilers out there really support >>> decl-after-stmt (not likely?!), or do you offer a patch for users with >>> older compilers? >> >> I used to maintain a patch, src/c99-to-c89.diff, that would perform the >> conversion, but stopped 4 or 5 months ago. It was not worth the trouble. >> >> So far, no one has complained. > > Interesting! > > I'll sneak in one decl-after-stmt in some of my projects and see if > anyone complains too. Using decl-after-stmt can improve code > readability so if it is possible to use, I'd like to make more use of > it.
If only a few people complain, give *them* the task of maintaining the ever-growing c99-to-c89 patches. Eventually they will either see that it is easier to upgrade their compiler(s), or the obsolete system will stop being relevant. Thinking I shouldn't have succumbed on fts.c, my consolation is that while doing that, I did manage to make a few minor unrelated improvements.
