Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #390181

Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator

Show key headers only | View raw

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2025-01-24, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/25 01:57, Alexis wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> JeanHeyd Meneide, a Project Editor for WG14, has just posted the
>>> results of a survey re. the preferred form of a new array size
>>> operator:
>>>
>>> "There is a clear preference for a lowercase keyword, here, though
>>> it is not by the biggest margin.  One would imagine that with the
>>> way we keep standardizing things since C89 (starting with _Keyword
>>> and then adding a header with a macro) that C folks would be
>>> overwhelmingly in favor of simply continuing that style.  The
>>> graph here, however, tells a different story:  while there's a
>>> large contingency that clearly hates having _Keyword by itself,
>>> it's not the _Keyword + stdkeyword.h macro that comes out on top!
>>> It's just having a plain lowercase keyword, instead."
>>
>> One of the most important goals of the C standard is backwards
>> compatibility.
>
> Backward compatibility matters in software.
>
> People use C compiler applications to open text documents of type
> C.
>
> All that matter is that there is a way to use their old document
> with the new application.
>
> It is almost purely a software matter, not requiring anything in
> the specification.
>
> The C++ people have already figured out this out, and are running
> with it (like crazy).
>
> It doesn't matter if the current language has a keyword "arraysize"
> which breaks every program that uses it as the name of something
> (goto label, struct member, variable, function ...) if
> the language implementation has an option like -std=c11
> under which that is not a keyword.
>
>> A lower case keyword would break any program that was
>
> That's like saying that the existence of Office 356 breaks every
> Word 97 document.
>
> That's only if Office 365 loses the ability to work with such a
> document;  the mere existence of the new format /per se/
> perpetrates no such harm.
>
> The problem with what I'm saying here is that it requires trust.
>
> The people specifying the language have to abandon their grasp of
> the reins of control on the compatibility issue and trust that the
> implementors will handle it in good ways for the benefit of their
> users.

It's hard to imagine a stance more antithetical to the point of
having a C standard in the first place.

> The people specifying the language also have to accept that
> the backward compatibility mechanism is not only out of their
> control, but that it has implementation-specific manifestations:
> the means by which an implementation is instructed to obey an
> older dialect isn't specified in the standard because they have
> decided that the manner of presenting a program for processing
> by an implementation is out of the Scope.
>
> Even if it were something that were somehow brought within the
> Scope, the standard couldn't go as far as to give a requirement
> like "a conforming impelmentation shall provide configurations
> for accepting programs in the following historic dialects of C:
> [...]"  You just can't do that.

These comments serve to underscore just how bad a decision it is
to add this unnecessary feature to the C standard.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Results of survey re. a new array size operator Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 17:57 +1100
  Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-24 13:56 +0200
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-24 14:16 +0000
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-24 20:10 +0000
        Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-24 22:12 +0000
          Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-25 00:57 +0000
            Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 01:48 -0800
              Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-01-29 11:45 +0000
                Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-29 14:24 +0200
                Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-01-29 07:24 -0500
                Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 08:01 -0800
                Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-29 11:09 -0500
                Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 08:18 -0800
  Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-24 08:56 -0500
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-24 20:24 +0000
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-24 20:32 -0500
        Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-25 02:40 +0000
          Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-25 00:06 -0500
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 02:13 -0800
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-01-24 23:13 +0000
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-25 01:17 +0000
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-24 20:57 -0500
        Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-01-25 21:18 +0000
          Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-25 16:28 -0800
            Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-01-26 01:48 +0000
            Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 02:31 -0800
  Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-24 19:45 +0000
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-01-25 09:39 +1100
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-25 01:16 +0000
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 02:17 -0800
  Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-29 02:19 -0800
  Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-01-29 16:00 +0000
    Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-29 18:01 +0100
      Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-01-30 00:31 +0000
        Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-30 10:59 +0100
        Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-30 12:13 -0800
          Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-30 21:33 +0000
            Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-30 22:31 +0000
            Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-02-18 19:46 -0800

csiph-web