From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11A81F403 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 17:54:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Xgp8r4WO"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229696AbiJGRyI (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:54:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43468 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229703AbiJGRyG (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:54:06 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6103D77DE for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4D015BCB0; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=6+1/6b+Mvzgi ipep5iiXz6Mg8YiVipQ/X9Z7Zqbx2cI=; b=Xgp8r4WOf0Y4IhxqxDuiq7LoEurP WwCML/K6pabYJzMRrPuIn6Y3SKb/SBfRZlai19Bn9+bhKVN8UipZV7ZP2CvFhkOt jY9LEe+OQ29rRrEs88kzXVyAgIA4S6j1el1akyKEZeloFXFWWbQvzTKQDvfq9XmD R/+L2xC4/XL/g90= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02A415BCAF; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 281A815BCAE; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:54:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Jeff King , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] CodingGuidelines: various C99 updates References: Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 10:54:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyCUFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:30:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0708AB92-4669-11ED-A2DB-2AEEC5D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > This series: > > * Rephrases CodingGuidelines so that we note we're on C99, and then > lists exceptions and features we use. The previous prose assumed > C89 by default. > > We still explicitly avoid opening the "feel free to use an C99 > feature" floodgates. The above contradicts with each other. A sensible position to support the "we do not open the floodgate" is that when in doubt stick to C89 but use C99 features that are explicitly allowed. > * Mentions that you can use dynamic C99 initializer elements. See the > recent discussion at > https://lore.kernel.org/git/221006.86a668r5mf.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.= com/ Good. > * Allows us to use "for (int i". I didn't set out to (slightly) jump > the gun on this, but just pulling the trigger around ~20 days early > makes it easier to ... This is a welcome change. As anything this set of patches won't become reality in any released version until mid December anyway, this is the cycle to "revisit around November 2022". > * ...add the natural follow-up section of C99 features you explicitly > shouldn't be using yet, to which I added the two cases I could > remember (in 4-5/5). And we do not have to say we do not use these from C99 if our base is C89, with explicitly allowed features from C99.