[PROJ] Motion: Adopt RFC3 - Dependency management

[Thomas Knudsen]

Thanks, Even, for elaborating on all the stuff I thought and meant, but
didn't mention. It was exactly my main concern, that the interface should
probably be kept C89(C90)-compatible for quite a while. The
library-internal code, since compiled as C++, can wiggle a lot more. All in
all going C++11 is a huge improvement, as long as we can keep the C ABI/API
reasonably stable/accessible from C and from projects expecting a C ABI.

RFC3 is perfectly fine as is, but proj.h and the ABI and API it exposes
needs special care. With that in mind, it is as Kristian indicates: A lot
of C99 considerations are more or less irrelevant now that we compile
everything as C++11.


Den ons. 16. jan. 2019 kl. 17.08 skrev Even Rouault <
even.rouault at spatialys.com>:

> On mercredi 16 janvier 2019 15:53:34 CET Kristian Evers wrote:
> > Most of the code is now compiled as C++ so probably not a big issue in
> > practical terms.
>
> Yes and no. My point was that, in the current state of PROJ master, people
> can
> for example use a separately compiled PROJ with whatever "modern" compiler
> we
> require (or use a PROJ binary from their prefered packaging), but still
> wanting to use the PROJ C API with their own build constraints, like
> enforcing
> -std=c89 in their code base, and thus including proj.h with non-C89
> features
> would break that.
>
> > Just to be clear, I have no intention of updating the RFC as it is now. I
> > don’t think the concerns raised here are incompatible with the content of
> > RFC3.
>
> RFC3 is fine for me as a general strategy. This is just a example of
> practical
> concrete decisions.
> I've sticked to using int in the new C API I've added in cases where bool
> might have been used.
>
> Even
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20190116/ff3bd32d/attachment.html>