I wondered if targeted standard matters, but the newest draft has roughly the same language:
An implementation may allocate any addressable storage unit large enough to hold a bit-field. If…
I'm fine with "avoid" rather than a strict ban, though I would prefer we either cite a standard/draft directly.
It is because of ordering.
Long winded explanation:
From the C89 draft: 3.5.2.1 Structure and union specifiers
An implementation…I think style falls under the CONTRIBUTING umbrella nicely; it's one little handbook that tells you how to participate in the project, from the forest to the trees.
That test always sucked. I'm considering filing a PR to erase it because it's nearly unmaintainable. Thoughts?
koan(1)
I'm fine with this but I like the connotation of fortune better, even if it doesn't fit with the theme.
-h
I've changed my mind. -h should never be used, and that's my only opinion on the matter - except, also, that programs should take advice from the design of other programs.
I disagree with the form but can't help agreeing with the compilation benefits.
I would rather have declarations precede assignments here. I understand assignment on declaration is idiomatic in Rust. Python, in fact, due to its type system, mandated it. But I've been forced to separate them (often) in C, and, having used both styles, prefer the separation for clarity of code.
Line 59 happens when a file is non-existent, which means it's failed the test.
I fear this is impossible; dj(1), for instance, necessarily can't put an upward bound on read cycles.