On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: > 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?
that is project X's decision and no one else's. dont pull a stallman on us and force everyone to subscribe to your ideas of "freedom". there's a reason we told him to take a hike. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
