Agreed. I hate this stuff. It should be easier than it has become. I don't like not understanding the legal ramifications, but I don't.
I think I'll re-release it when I figure out how.
Thanks, I'll look it over (and hope I understand it better than I did the LGPL.)
Yeah. The old way of doing things.
I'll hope to hear from others on this topic, rather than just jumping forward and either accepting or rejecting this argument. I have my habits and, for now, I can afford to keep them. But you've put me on notice.
If I agreed. But that jury is still out. For now, I'll leave it as is. Others will, of course, be free to do as they please. But you aren't talking about "this code" but about my future writing style, David. And that is a lot bigger issue than just this case and involves a profound change of earlier habits, as well. It warrants more thought and some research and probably some listening to others.
Ah. Back to templates and c++.
As I mentioned already, had I been writing in c++ I would have used templates. And your arguments would carry more weight, I think.
Regardless of your writing here that I should consider c++ when writing c, in this case it is so much better to use templates if using c++ that I just don't imagine the code I'm writing here will ever find much purchase in c++. It's just so much better as templated code that most anyone would rush to that point and not use what I wrote, except as at most some guide or test comparison.
See above comments.
I'm still on C90 for almost everything I do. And I can absolutely assure you, right here and now, that I will _not_ write code that requires C99 compliance even when writing c. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps when C99 becomes more widely supported. Writing for C90 means it will work in C99. Writing for C99 does NOT mean it will work with a C90 compiler.
Well, you have my answer to that. Someone else's job, if they want it. C90 remains the "portable" standard for me for embedded use. Not C99. Not c++.
Well, we will simply have to leave this unresolved between us, then. I can follow your argument, but I don't embrace it.
hehe. It's not. But... that means I then need to provide that and they need to stuff it into the right directory (if I use instead of "".) More work.
However, this discussion has convinced me to remove hamm_def.h completely. It's really more of an annoyance than a help and I think you've convinced me of that much. New code is reposted, already.
... Oh, well.
No, C90 is the best. C99 isn't always there.
I use gcc only rarely in my applications.
No, C90.
hehe. What would you consider to be pretty?
Hmm. okay. I changed that. More ugliness, but what the heck. __HAMM_CHECK_T is used throughout, now. ;)
Oh, something like this:
#if sizeof( __HAMM_VALUE_T ) == 2
might be useful. There is code that is either needed, or not needed, depending on the word size. It would be nice to modify code depending upon the number of check bits required and the size of the data word.
That's all.
:) I'm still back on C90.
I've enjoyed this and you've made me think a little and change a few things in the process. Plus, I'm still hoping to learn something about various licenses, too.
So all to the good, I think. I'm very glad you took me to task. It's improved things, already. (I also found a bug caused by some last second changes I'd made for silly efficiency reasons and I owe you for that.)
Jon