Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

Hi M, > even pcc can handle C99 these days! :-) That's nice. And Arch has it in its AUR repository. I've added it to the list of build variations to try and set up someday. > I've seen only one problem when using nmh compiled with pcc, and I > think it's legitimately a bug in nmh rather than

Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

>As for C99, POSIX mandates it these days so it's time to upgrade from >pcc(1)! I don't think it was discussed publicly, but The Nmh Cabal(*) decided not too long ago to make C99 our baseline target in terms of language. Since that ratified 19 years ago, seems like it's about time. --Ken * -

Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

Hi Paul and Bakul, > > Paul wrote: > > > Ralph Corderoy (7): > > > fmttest.c: Avoid `++' with bools, silencing compiler warnings. > > > > i hate that perfectly reasonable, traditional idioms have to be > > avoided for this reason. > > No strong reason to use type bool in the first place. It

Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

Bakul Shah wrote: fmttest.c: Avoid `++' with bools, silencing compiler warnings. i hate that perfectly reasonable, traditional idioms have to be avoided for this reason. No strong reason to use type bool in the first place. It didn’t show up till c99. pointers aren't booleans.

Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

> On Jan 22, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Paul Fox wrote: > > nmh-commits-requ...@nongnu.org wrote: >> Ralph Corderoy (7): >> fmttest.c: Avoid `++' with bools, silencing compiler warnings. > > i hate that perfectly reasonable, traditional idioms have to be avoided > for

Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh-commits Digest, Vol 108, Issue 11

nmh-commits-requ...@nongnu.org wrote: > Ralph Corderoy (7): > fmttest.c: Avoid `++' with bools, silencing compiler warnings. i hate that perfectly reasonable, traditional idioms have to be avoided for this reason. paul =-- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us