On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:49 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My > question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta > information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X > says their code should be compiled with GCC, what are the benefits > exactly if you change that into "should be compiled with a C99 compliant > compiler", considering you are eventually interested in the produced > code only. (Is it worth it to teach/force devs to use something else > if this is only how to obtain the end product, which should run with > "anything"?)
project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, should we deny the ICC users the ability to compile it? I don't think so. I think users should have a choice. If users didn't have choice, then EGCS would never have happened. I believe it is work teaching devs to use POSIX shell over bash. For example, many of the recent commits have highlighted that a lot of devs have no idea when it comes to quoting. My view on this is because bash encourages you not to quote by using [[ ]], unlike POSIX [ ] which forces you to know when to quote. It also means that their code stands a better chance of working where bash is not available, but /bin/sh is a POSIX shell still. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
