> c89 is considerably more portable than c99. Out of popular compilers, > only gcc implements c99 (I know only gcc and VC). c99 is still > largely ignored by some commercial compiler, notably VC. > If you want your C code to be widely portable, you'd avoid > c99, for practical reasons.
How interesting, you learn something new every day! > > Did you try the suggestion that I made, or is it not appropriate? > > Changing extension to .c89/.c99 is not an option. > gcc even does not understand such file extensions, only *.c What about my modeline suggestion then? Max