Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 03:14:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <86bjtcgrmw.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me> <vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me> <vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me> <vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me> <vsjjd1$23ukt$1@dont-email.me> <vsjkvb$25mtg$1@dont-email.me> <vsjlkq$230a5$2@dont-email.me> <vsjs5k$2bfc5$2@dont-email.me> <vsjvgu$2fpp1$1@dont-email.me> <GDfHP.1440068$SZca.528582@fx13.iad> <86semphp2p.fsf@linuxsc.com> <GnwHP.5713$j2D.3280@fx09.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 12:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b7dfe457c74e7e4c87a6e88750aefc9"; logging-data="3317211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1FRbOqIxhAT9gn2doKrKEECD5dauw/XQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XyfRQBSdqDLFp6UhyOK5uLK61sg= sha1:uw2sxUfqvZr/rRz8w4KiqJzr3gU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:391980

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> So it is not true that you need include stddef.h, nor obvious
>>>> that that is where NULL is defined, if you are used to having it
>>>> available indirectly.
>>>
>>> Indeed, and it is well documented.
>>>
>>> For example, in the POSIX description for the string functions
>>> you'll find the following statement:
>>>
>>>     [CX] Inclusion of the <string.h> header may also make visible
>>>          all symbols from <stddef.h>.  [Option End]
>>>
>>> This is true for a number of POSIX headers, include those you
>>> enumerate above.
>>>
>>> [CX] marks a POSIX extension to ISO C.
>>
>> How strange.  I don't know why anyone would ever want either to
>> rely on or to take advantage of this property.
>
> Some existing unix implementations at the time the standard was
> adopted had that behavior and the committee was not willing to
> break existing implementations.

My comment was only about clients, not about implementors or
the POSIX standards group.