On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:36:16PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg via curl-library
wrote:
> What features in C17 do you think would improve curl?
While I do not encourage the switch to C17, the only advantage that
comes to my mind would be the support of instead of
CURLSHOPT_LOCKFUNC.
--Emil
--
Unsubs
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Rodrigo s via curl-library wrote:
Why not jump to C17, the last standard version.
What features in C17 do you think would improve curl?
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
| Commercial curl support up to 24x7 is available!
| Private help, bug fixes, support, ports, new features
| ht
> On 20. Sep 2022, at 04:24, Daniel Stenberg via curl-library
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> — `//` comments
I would expect that C99 is old enough to be working well for the curl users,
who need to build a new version of the library/application.
Maybe you start slowly by chan
On 9/23/22 12:07 PM, Rodrigo s via curl-library wrote:
This comment may be very off-topic, this is just my curiosity:
My question is WHY???
So, there is zero chance that any of us know even 1% of other's use cases,
so just because it makes no sense to you means very little.
One can argue trad
Maybe
some crazy youtube video. But.. Not anything real...
Can someone show a scenario where the last up-to-date curl can be useful
for their end-of-life operation system without any more support?
In the same way, I think this discussion is so bizarre. Change from C89 to
C99 makes... no sense... Wh
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:02:04AM -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien via curl-library
wrote:
> By advocating for "our responsibility" to avoid backwards compatibility
> because it "promotes irresponsibility", comes off to some of us as, well,
> so sad to be you, a responsible person, because we are going t
he
world and that are working in their own way, to raise a bar to better
height, even if the effort appears, from some vantage point, to be
piteously inadequate, or, irresponsible.
> I could actually go back and rewrite this e-mail to replace C89 with C99
> and make pretty close to the same a
y is irresponsibly encouraging users to stick with outdated
dependencies with security issues and is therefore harmful to the
Internet as a whole.
I could actually go back and rewrite this e-mail to replace C89 with C99
and make pretty close to the same arguments. C99 will be just a few
mo
On 9/21/22 11:46 AM, Kevin R. Bulgrien via curl-library wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Stenberg via curl-library"
To: "libcurl hacking"
Cc: "Daniel Stenberg"
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:24:37 AM
Subject: C99
Hello,
New mail thread t
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Stenberg via curl-library"
To: "libcurl hacking"
Cc: "Daniel Stenberg"
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:24:37 AM
Subject: C99
Hello,
New mail thread to make this topic more visible. The idea of switching to C99
a
convinced we want to go all-in and totally
crazy on all
> these fronts immediately, and I think having an idea what we
want in terms
> of code style is a good idea to have thought about before the
flood gates
> open.
While I'm not against a switch to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2022, Emil Engler via curl-library wrote:
While I'm not against a switch to C99, I consider most of the features
introduced by it, to put it mildly, useless.
I'm inclined to agree that virtually nothing of that is *necessary*.
I think however that it will help us goi
ronts immediately, and I think having an idea what we want in
> terms
> > of code style is a good idea to have thought about before the flood gates
> > open.
>
> While I'm not against a switch to C99, I consider most of the features
> introduced by it, to put it mildly, us
ut before the flood gates
> open.
While I'm not against a switch to C99, I consider most of the features
introduced by it, to put it mildly, useless. Sure, some things of it
are very useful and cannot be achieved by ease in C89, such as
and variadic macros, but most of the other featu
On Tue, 20 Sep 2022, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
In my opinion, it makes sense to rely on some of the newer language
capabilities, but note that MSVC does not support all required language
features of C99 (only C11 and C17 are supported by recent versions). This
means in particular that
Hi,
> At the same time, if we accept C99 it will be hard to enforce restrictions
> with compilers and checksrc certainly will not stop most of the things in
> that
> list (the //-comments perhaps being the single exception).
>
> Thoughts?
I like the idea and agree that wo
Hi!
On 20.09.2022 at 11:24, Daniel Stenberg via curl-library wrote:
> New mail thread to make this topic more visible. The idea of switching
> to C99 as the base level for curl code when we go version 8 (March 2023)
> is attractive to me. I figure compilers have had some time to get
&g
Hello,
New mail thread to make this topic more visible. The idea of switching to C99
as the base level for curl code when we go version 8 (March 2023) is
attractive to me. I figure compilers have had some time to get compliant and
find widespread use by now!
I added a PR just now to
18 matches
Mail list logo
