{"comment":{"user":{"login":"twinaphex","id":1075274,"url":"https://api.github.com/users/twinaphex","avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/0c689c10f4ffcf4374e234f0cf3e331a?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","gravatar_id":"0c689c10f4ffcf4374e234f0cf3e331a"},"created_at":"2011-12-29T00:56:31Z","path":null,"updated_at":"2011-12-29T00:56:31Z","id":825362,"html_url":"https://github.com/twinaphex/genesis-next/commit/62ee45296b#commitcomment-825362","position":null,"body":"'I did not mean converting or mixing code with C++ but compiling current C99 code with MSVC C++ compiler.'\r\n\r\nThat is exactly what I said - 'I don't feel comfortable compiling C code as C++ code' - I knew before converting it to C89 that I could try compiling it as C++ code - it's just that I'm not going to because compiling C code as C++ on an in-order PPC CPU is just not ideal. The approach I did (convert what is essentially predominantly C89-code to full C89) is the only right approach that could have been taken in this instance - most of Charles' original code all had variables declared at the top of the function according to C89 specs - the only code that couldn't be compiled straight as C89 and needed alterations were some of the alterations done in the port.","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/twinaphex/genesis-next/comments/825362","line":null,"commit_id":"62ee45296bd1e23ca9dede6461caa59d0d0f7357"}}