Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76229
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.171 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12BE91FB-B17E-4C9D-BED1-34357A8ECED6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
In-Reply-To: <slrnlt54i9.775.dsp@dsp.local>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:41:20 +0800
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <208010FD-8D4D-4C54-A162-45BCE01BCE78@gmail.com>
References: <CAMUwpuRJVmWwAMMdzAeoec=tvgkW1L++jxhDKjKbWvQNh5C7JQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c_HUkUQes2vt9x07+d7JMpt99DtEo9b9pRD_YQj6vF6TA@mail.gmail.com> <FCDF6A43-3935-4F1D-AC31-41BE47F4BAD2@ajf.me> <slrnlt54i9.775.dsp@dsp.local>
To: David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Thoughts on C version supported for PHP-Next
From: liaohuqiu@gmail.com (Huqiu Liao)

--Apple-Mail=_12BE91FB-B17E-4C9D-BED1-34357A8ECED6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=windows-1252

IMP, C89 is simple enough and reliable. Though it is old. it is wildly =
supported.

On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:22 AM, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net> wrote:

> On 2014-07-25, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>=20
>> On 25 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> I think the main question here is whether MSVC will have good C99 =
support
>>> by the time PHP-Next is released. The other major compilers (GCC, =
Clang,
>>> Intel) may not support all of C99 (esp stuff like FP pragmas), but =
have a
>>> reasonable degree of support.
>>>=20
>>> If we can, I'd be very much in favor of using C99. In particular =
mixed
>>> code+declarations is a major code quality improvement to me.
>>=20
>> Well, we don=92t need to allow all of C99. We can simply allow using =
features that are widely supported and actually useful. For example, =
declarations between statements, and C++-style line comments with //.
>>=20
>> Though for consistency with the rest of the codebase, perhaps we =
should stick to C-style /* */ comments.
>=20
> It is hard to judge what "widely supported" means. PHP is so =
widespread
> that people run it on embedded systems, 10+ year old servers (see old
> masters.php.net) and compile them with compiler most of us have never
> touched (suncc, pcc).
>=20
> I think we have to come up with good arguments for C99 support that we =
just
> can't do with C89 in order to potentially keep out people.
>=20
> tl;dr: I believe unless we have strong arguments we should =
acknowkledge that PHP
> is so widespread that changing compiler can make some users unhappy =
and if we
> don't have really good reasons we shouldn't.
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


--Apple-Mail=_12BE91FB-B17E-4C9D-BED1-34357A8ECED6--