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

[Alejandro Colomar]

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 <
>> g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> 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.

Cheers,
Alex

> 
> 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] https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/sc22/wg14/www/wg14_document_log.htm

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature