jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
Because it is the standard Heathfield
There isn't a standard Heathfield. We have a wide variety of Heathfields -
Imperial Heathfields, metric Heathfields, Jedi Heathfields and even a
quilting Heathfield - and no standard has yet emerged. There is some talk
amongst interested parties of having a chat with ISO, but frankly we doubt
if it will come to anything.
As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If you need
portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why bother with
/any/ Standard?
You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is using
a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and guarantee
that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I *still* cannot
even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.
Wake me up when GNU and Microsoft have conforming C99 compilers and
libraries - because until that happens, C99 is a pipe-dream. If it ever
does happen, that won't mean the work is over, but at least it will be a
strong marketplace indication that C99 is considered commercially viable.
Until then, we might as well ignore C99 - and C0X is a spectactular
exercise in futility.