[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86355 - python/branches/py3k/Modules/_pickle.c (original) (raw)
Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Nov 11 07:09:58 CET 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86355 - python/branches/py3k/Modules/_pickle.c
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86348 - in python/branches/py3k/Lib: test/test_xml_etree.py xml/etree/ElementTree.py
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Belopolsky writes:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
... On the original question, I think it's preferable to keep compilers happy unless you're willing to require C99.
Hmm, maybe I should take another look at http://bugs.python.org/issue4805 .
Note that issue #10359 was not about any real compiler
True, but a real compiler has been mentioned in the thread, and I know that every time XEmacs lets a non-C89 feature slip through (most commonly, "//" comments and declarations following non-declarations, the latter being a killer feature in C-like languages IMO, but our current coding standard says "C89") we get build breakage reports.
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86355 - python/branches/py3k/Modules/_pickle.c
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r86348 - in python/branches/py3k/Lib: test/test_xml_etree.py xml/etree/ElementTree.py
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]