From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 17:54:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] CodingGuidelines: various C99 updates Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > 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.