Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/09/07/10:00:05
> No, --ansi is there to get rid of gcc-specific features that
> *conflict* with the ANSI standard. It's not an excuse to add random
> incompatibilities otherwise.
Sorry. I thought this were a conversation, not a word-playing contest.
English is not my mother tongue so, obviously, there's a need for some
intellectual honesty from the other side. Re-writing what I have written
another way with the blatent intent to confuse me is surely a lot of fun.
Getting rid of the newline requirement would exactly be a "gcc-specific
feature that *conflicts* with the ANSI standard" that's exactly what I said,
*read*. The real thing we do not agree on is the fact this would be a RANDOM
feature.
Do you consider BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY as a random feature? I'm afraid yes
(just read again Joel's message and you'll see that's his problem).
But who am I to discuss this issue? You're right, I'm wrong and there is no
argumentation possible.
Again, I'm perfectly aware this is a GCC issue but does it mean we can't
discuss such choices? What is the open-source community about? Closed-minded
people in secret rooms that decide for the world? Should I take the source
and make an alternate compiler that only modifies a couple lines or is it
more clever to discuss the issue?
Now flame me for being insolent, for disrespecting the king, I don't expect
anything out of this message anyway. I've seen enough electronic communities
to recognize the one-word-answering chief. And I know he never listens... at
least not in public.
- Raw text -