Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 20:28:29 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <86a5kfj3c2.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> <20240523171911.00002f5a@yahoo.com> <v2o7re$1tlge$1@dont-email.me> <20240524003424.0000590a@yahoo.com> <86ikz4htz5.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87sey82anw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 05:28:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e2ccf3374e48a9f13e87ba250cb95a8"; logging-data="2277342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1977eg/9FUltymDzeXYY07nM0aP3RBxef0="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WNmWg4MS8fmCkiG3wz7MAiYD8Ho= sha1:sBq/CEvQgxEhhD5V34/UCmApPFw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:384959

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> [...]
>
>> Having 'constexpr' be classified as a storage class illustrates
>> how poorly thought out it is.
>
> constexpr is not classified as a storage class.  N3022, like earlier
> editions, says there are four storage durations:  static, thread,
> automatic, and allocated.

Obviously I was talking about the syntactic classification.
Don't be obtuse.