Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc

["Fernan Bolando" <fernanbolando@mailc.net>]

On 4/8/06, uriel@cat-v.org <uriel@cat-v.org> wrote:
> Writing code that will compile with ?c is just matter good style, ie.,
> not (ab)using cpp, not using gcc extensions and so on; see
> /sys/doc/comp.ps for details. Ape doesn't not even come into the
> picture, no sane C code should ever need to use cpp(1)
>
> Figuring out if the builtin preprocessor will handle your code should
> be obvious, but if you really want to test, you could use the port of
> the compilers that is part of Inferno.
>
> And if you have the disgrace of having to write software under lunix,
> I would recommend using the p9p libs and doing native ports
> to Plan 9. Or just use Limbo and Inferno and be happy.
>
> Ape is an unfortunate historical aberration, lets leave it at that and
> not write new code that depends on it.

My skills are not always good enough to port everything to plan9 natively.

I am also apprehensive to port some stuff natively because, some of the stuff
that where ported native IMO had far too much structural change that it would
be difficult to merge back to the orginal code.
I dont want to end up using code from projects that I like and not be able
to contribute to it.( assuming I have something to offer )

New codes should be written in p9p or plan9 native, But for other poeples
project they should be the one to decide I guess.As I understand it
this was the main reason ape was created

How do you guys handle this type of situation?

--
Public PGP/GnuPG key (http://www.fernski.com)
pub 1024D/3576CA71 2006-02-02 Fernan Bolando
Key fingerprint = FDFE C9A8 FFED C1A5 2F5C EFEB D595 AF1C 3576 CA71