------- Comment #16 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-05-01 23:30 ------- Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization
"falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- Comment #15 from falk at debian dot org 2006-05-01 20:55 ------- | (In reply to comment #12) | > Subject: Re: goto crossing P.O.D. initialization | > | > "falk at debian dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | I think this is a valid request. While random language extensions aren't | > | useful, | > | compatibility with C99 is. Maybe somebody else can comment on this... | > | > You have to be more precise about what you mean by C99 compatibility. | | I have trouble seeing what might be unclear about this term. I suspect part of the problem is that everybody believes that his/her uses of the term are so clear that they he/she has trouble seeing anybody disagree with him/her. | I mean that code | that is valid C99 is accepted in C++ unless there is a good reason not to. And why not the other way around? I mean, codes that is valid C++ is accepted in C99 unless there is good reason not to. As far as I can see, that also is compatibility. | just like most of C89 is accepted in C++ unless there is a good reason not to. I suspect this is might be one the places things needs to be explained. If * only a subset of C89 is valid C++ and has same meaning as in C++, * C99 has carefully departed from both C89 and C++ why is it that "code that is valid C99 is accepted C++ unless there is a good reason not to"? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27235
