Bryan Turner <bturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Even though we have been sticking to C89, there are a few handy
>> features we borrow from more recent C language in our codebase after
>> trying them in weather balloons and saw that nobody screamed.
>>
>> Spell them out.
>>
>> While at it, extend the existing variable declaration rule a bit to
>> read better with the newly spelled out rule for the for loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> index 1169ff6c8e..53903b14c8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> @@ -195,10 +195,24 @@ For C programs:
>> by e.g. "echo DEVELOPER=1 >>config.mak".
>>
>> - We try to support a wide range of C compilers to compile Git with,
>> - including old ones. That means that you should not use C99
>> - initializers, even if a lot of compilers grok it.
>> + including old ones. That means that you should not use certain C99
>> + features, even if your compiler groks it. There are a few
>> + exceptions:
>>
>> + . since early 2012 with e1327023ea, we have been using an enum
>> + definition whose last element is followed by a comma.
>
> Is there a significance to the leading . here versus a leading - below?
Absolutely.
- Item 1's description
- Item 2's description
. subitem a of 2
. subitem b of 2
These two subitems are exceptions.
- Item 3's description
was what I meant.
