> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:24:21 -0800 Evan Gates <evan.gates_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > headers
> > =======
> > system headers (#include <...>) in alphabetical order
> > empty line
> > local headers (#include "...") in alphabetical order
> > if there is any reason to change order, comment to explain
>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:47:31PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> If headers depend on order, the headers are broken. Dismissed.
Is this not a question of readability rather than whether it works or
not? I've seen grouped by portability, ordered alphabetically, because
it makes it easier to see the dependencies.
> > C version
> > =========
> > use C99 (why not C11? I really like anonymous unions/structs)
>
> suckless default is a mix of C90 and C99. C11 is a mess.
Why in particular? Compiler support?
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon Nov 17 2014 - 23:23:10 CET