[GRASS-dev] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Moritz Lennert]

Am 31. Januar 2021 22:15:53 MEZ schrieb Markus Metz <markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>:
>On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Moritz Lennert <
>mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 29. Januar 2021 20:54:06 GMT+00:00 schrieb Markus Metz <
>markus.metz.giswork at gmail.com>:
>> >Hi Huidae,
>> >
>> >On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:30 PM Huidae Cho <grass4u at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Markus,
>> >>
>> >> I think we have to think about what benefits it would bring to us by
>> >modernizing C code. Probably, not much at all. Personally, I would keep
>it
>> >as is because the minimum set of anything (e.g., ANSI C with no new
>> >features) would probably be more portable, I believe. In other words,
>what
>> >are we missing from C99?
>> >
>> >as I mentioned, there is no need to modernize the GRASS C code. The
>> >question is if we officially allow C99 features.
>> >
>> >For example a number of useful math-related functions and macros are only
>> >available with C99. See /usr/include/math.h on your system and search for
>> >C99. Also a number of features related to data types, particularly for
>> >various int datatypes (stdint.h), become available with C99. And the
>> >geographic lib in PROJ with src/geodesic.c wants C99. For new PROJ
>> >versions, C99 is a requirement.
>>
>>
>> If proj requires it, doesn't it automatically become a requirement for
>GRASS as well ?
>
>No, because the code base of other libs might have completely different
>compile requirements. A software can use functions and libs of other
>software packages, but does not need to follow the compile standards of
>those other software packages, because they are compiled independently.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

In light of that I agree that we should choose the oldest standard possible, unless we _really_ need something only present in a more recent version.

@those who want to use more recent standards: what are your reasons for that ?

Moritz