On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

2014-02-27 11:22 GMT+01:00 Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan@ccpgames.com>:
> Now, Larry Hastings pointed out that we support C89 which doesn’t support
> Inlines.  Rather than suggesting here that we update that compatibility
> requirement,

In practice, recent versions of GCC and Clang are used. On Windows,
it's Visual Studio 2010. I'm pretty sure that these compilers support
inline functions.

I'm also in favor of using inline functions instead of long macros
using ugly hacks like "instr1,instr2" syntax where instr1 used
assert(). See for example unicodeobject.c to have an idea of what
horrible macros mean.

I'm in favor of dropping C89 support and require at least C99. There
is now C11, it's time to drop the old C89.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29

The Visual Studio team has publicly stated they will never support C99, so dropping C89 blindly is going to alienate a big part of our user base unless we switch to C++ instead. I'm fine with trying to pull in C99 features, though, that we can somehow support in a backwards-compatible way with VS.