[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [platform-testers] groff 1.23.0.rc3 on native Windows

From: Alejandro Colomar
Subject: Re: [platform-testers] groff 1.23.0.rc3 on native Windows
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 00:03:57 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0

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 <
>>> 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.


> 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]

GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]