Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: function declaration without args no longer works Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 12:48:40 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <865x58z0tj.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <10sl5na$5ov$1@reader1.panix.com> <20260426175044.000062ff@yahoo.com> <10slf3h$mho$3@reader1.panix.com> <10smamp$1vlj2$2@dont-email.me> <10smvq5$25a7q$2@dont-email.me> <10spm2q$5fq$1@reader1.panix.com> <10spqdr$2vs2g$1@dont-email.me> <10ss83f$c4t$1@reader1.panix.com> <10ssb73$3mum2$1@dont-email.me> <20260429112553.00006835@yahoo.com> <10ssit3$3pds0$1@dont-email.me> <10su6fn$9qef$2@dont-email.me> <86y0i4zylr.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10svme9$mrh8$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ff432f926fb921b7df3a70694682c9f"; logging-data="975978"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18W1LuZy/QxftuU89uqkUpP6fuRk2/rd0M=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qTyBo4OIw809Wlj6eTlke4/WHos= sha1:DnIfSjVwOhmi0PC5ig3yIuHGNOo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:398140 James Kuyper writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> James Kuyper writes: >> >>> [...] for those of us >>> using C for scientific and engineering purposes (however misguided >>> you might think our choice of language is), support for complex >>> math, being able to check for __STDC__IEC__ISO665__, [...]. I've >>> known Fortran programmers who said that it was the only really >>> good language for such purposes, who changed their mind when C99 >>> came out. >> >> I expect what was meant there is __STDC_IEC_559__. IEC ISO 665 >> refers to the ISO standard for the determination of moisture and >> volatile matter content in oilseeds. > > My apologies. No apology needed. I know you strive to be accurate and figured it was just an oversight. I posted the comment mostly for the benefit of other people so they wouldn't be confused. Also I thought it was amusing that the accidental jumble referred to another standard that was out in left field (perhaps even literally :). > I was talking about changes make in C99, so I should have referred to > that standard. But to check on the spelling of the macro, I opened up > the latest draft of the standard, in which __STDC_IEC_559__ is > [something], and it instead refers to ISO60559. Actually I think that is ISO/IEC 60559. That is, in N3220, IIANM; or were you referring to some other document? Which version of the C standard is the latest ratified version? I don't try to keep up with the latest draft. Incidentally, note that it was IEC 60559 (without the ISO) in C99 (the preceding citations from memory only). > I didn't notice the > change, and somehow typoed it into ISO665. I have no idea why, other > than the fact that it was a late night posting while I was still on > medications from my hip replacement surgery. As it happens I was working on something recently that uses the (optionally) pre-defined macro name __STDC_IEC_559__, so I was sensitized to that.