Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76233 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 89256 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2014 14:00:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jul 2014 14:00:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:34547] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 4E/EC-26001-B6756D35 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:00:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A48910D084; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:00:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:00:15 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Andrea Faulds cc: Nikita Popov , Julien Pauli , PHP Internals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1894907502-1406556016=:3793" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Thoughts on C version supported for PHP-Next From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1894907502-1406556016=:3793 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote: >=20 > On 25 Jul 2014, at 18:02, Nikita Popov wrote: >=20 > > I think the main question here is whether MSVC will have good C99 suppo= rt > > 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=E2=80=99t need to allow all of C99. We can simply allow usin= g=20 > features that are widely supported and actually useful. For example,=20 > declarations between statements, I think that makes code a lot less readable, so I would not be in favour=20 allowing this in our coding guidelines. cheers, Derick --8323329-1894907502-1406556016=:3793--