On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ineiev <ine...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Spanton <rspan...@zepler.net> wrote: >> The key word being "if". If and when the issue arises, then we fix it. > > In other words, you are willing to break it and won't fix. >
It's not exactly one way or the other, but I believe this falls more under the "You Aren't Gonna Need It" category than the "breaking it" category. Robert has already pointed out that PCB currently won't build without a C99 compiler (because of the c++ style comments, and I'd be willing to bet a few other things). Why add complexity to the code for unneeded and half-way features (the "feature" here being non-c99 compatibility). If you need the feature, you can add it when you need it. I'll grant that replacing Boolean with bool takes it further away from being non-c99 compatible, which could be seen as "breaking it" further if non-c99 compatibility is what you want. However, it has plenty of advantages, that he has pointed out, that IMHO out weigh that negative. In addition, if one were to aim for non-c99 compatibility, the AC_HDR_STDBOOL way is arguably the "right way" to do it, so this patch takes the code part of the way there anyway. > Why not apply it to your local branch instead of PCB master? > Because it's annoying to maintain a local patch set, and one of the great things about open-source software is the community contributing back and making the code/program better. Robert provided the script and the git filter-branch tip to make it easier for those with local change-sets to avoid the conflicts if this were committed to the main repo by removing all the conflicts in one easy step. Jared _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user