Hi Branden, On 3/23/23 23:35, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2023-03-12T19:36:50+0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 18:50 G. Branden Robinson < >> g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Good enough for me! I used <stdint.h> because groff's application >>> of C++ is 30 years old, and has not yet transitioned to the new >>> inclusion style. (I'd have done so, but I haven't looked up >>> precisely what the ramifications of that are, and didn't want to fix >>> something that wasn't operationally broken. Maybe for groff 1.24.) >>> >> >> I'd ask you to not do that. The <c*> headers don't buy you much, and >> instead adds more divergence from C. BTW, the C++ committee is >> considering undeprecating the C headers, since realistically they'll >> need to be supported basically forever. > > My understanding of the future status quo (from occasional browsing of > the WG14 Document Log[1], I think) is that the <c*> headers will > continue to be preferred for "C++ mode" compilation, but that the old > <*.h> form is acceptable (or required) for stuff inside extern "C".
To be pedantic, <c*> headers are preferred if you use std::size_t. <*.h> headers are preferred if you use size_t. That goes by the hand with "C++ mode" or "C mode", but because C++ recommends using std:: for C stuff. Now, groff's dialect of C++ is closer to "C mode" rather than C++, so ... really up to you. Cheers, Alex > > But there is time both for this issue to settle out and for me to be > corrected on the point; such a refactor is not high on my priority list. > > Regards, > Branden > > [1] https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/sc22/wg14/www/wg14_document_log.htm -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature