Re: [AD] al_list_config_entries

[Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 21:43, Chris wrote:
> If VC doesn't even plan on adding a good portion of C99 features, I say 
> we don't even bother with VC.

While I'm tempted to say this as well and basically agree with the other 
things you said, we cannot realistically ignore MSVC or tell people to get 
`a compiler that isn't broken'.
As far as I know, Microsoft's compiler is actually a C++ compiler, which 
means that they don't even have to support any C99 features to have a 
fully complient compiler (the idea that `C++ is a superset of C' is no 
longer true with C99).

However, I do think we shouldn't hold back on C99 too much. We can insert 
preprocessor directives to work around incompatibilities between MSVC and 
C99.

Evert