Re: [PATCH 0/5] CodingGuidelines: various C99 updates

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 7, 2022, 17:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk05bfrk7.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <cover-0.5-00000000000-20221007T092505Z-avarab@gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> This series:
>
>  * Rephrases CodingGuidelines so that we note we're on C99, and then
>    lists exceptions and features we use. The previous prose assumed
>    C89 by default.
>
>    We still explicitly avoid opening the "feel free to use an C99
>    feature" floodgates.

The above contradicts with each other. A sensible position to support the "we do not open the floodgate" is that when in doubt stick to C89 but use C99 features that are explicitly allowed.

>  * Mentions that you can use dynamic C99 initializer elements. See the
>    recent discussion at
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/221006.86a668r5mf.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/

Good.

>  * Allows us to use "for (int i". I didn't set out to (slightly) jump
>    the gun on this, but just pulling the trigger around ~20 days early
>    makes it easier to ...

This is a welcome change. As anything this set of patches won't become reality in any released version until mid December anyway, this is the cycle to "revisit around November 2022".

>  * ...add the natural follow-up section of C99 features you explicitly
>    shouldn't be using yet, to which I added the two cases I could
>    remember (in 4-5/5).

And we do not have to say we do not use these from C99 if our base is C89, with explicitly allowed features from C99.