Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #396291

Re: function pointer question

From Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: function pointer question
Date 2026-01-07 18:44 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <86ldi8ombu.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <10jbsp0$1gf7e$1@dont-email.me> <10jc02j$1hk1n$1@dont-email.me> <86bjj5phai.fsf@linuxsc.com> <10jm0ul$oq53$1@dont-email.me> <10jm1a1$pfer$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> writes:

> On Wed 1/7/2026 8:17 AM, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>
>> which is related to how qualifications are treated under
>> _Generic`. `_Generic` operates on "exact match" basis not on "type
>> compatibility" basis.  Which is why such matters suddenly become
>> important.
>
> No, I take it back.  `_Generic` chooses its branches based on type
> compatibility.

Right.  For _Generic, top-level qualifiers are dropped (IIUC).

Incidental comment:  the discussion in DR 423 leaves much to be
desired.

> In that case it raises an interesting question:  why does the C
> standard keeps sticking to this, i.e. keeps persistent top-level
> qualifiers on function parameters?  Why not switch to C++-like approach
> and just discard such qualifiers at the parameter type adjustment
> stage?  Especially now, after C17 started to explicitly do this with
> the return type.

My guess is that's a consequence of the processes used to write the
ISO C standard and to modify the ISO C standard.  A lot of work goes
into both writing the text initially and revising the text later when
a change is needed (talking about a change to the text, which could be
either a modification of an earlier semantics or a clarification of an
earlier semantics).  Sometimes there is a sense that a smaller change
would mean less work and also a smaller chance of unintended problems
(and errors), so a smaller change is chosen even though the end result
is less attractive.  Perhaps that happened here, in much the same way
that modifying source code might choose an easier path locally to the
detriment of some larger overall aesthetic.

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

Thread

function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 07:24 +0000
  Re: function pointer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-02 09:04 +0000
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 14:42 +0000
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 14:45 +0000
  Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 02:52 -0800
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 14:43 +0000
      Re: function pointer question highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-02 17:21 +0100
        Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 09:37 -0800
        Re: function pointer question Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-03 03:33 +0000
          Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-03 07:41 -0800
            Re: function pointer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 21:46 +0000
              Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-04 12:03 +0100
            Re: function pointer question Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-06 20:41 +0000
              Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-07 07:18 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 21:52 -0800
                Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-08 09:17 +0100
  Re: function pointer question Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-02 17:48 +0000
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 19:35 +0000
      Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 12:07 -0800
        Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-03 06:06 +0000
      Re: function pointer question Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-02 21:50 +0000
      Re: function pointer question Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-02 21:52 +0000
        Re: function pointer question "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 14:18 -0800
          Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-03 13:55 +0100
            Re: function pointer question "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-03 12:04 -0800
              Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-03 13:01 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 07:35 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-07 08:17 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-07 08:23 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 18:44 -0800
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 18:27 -0800
              Re: function pointer question Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-03 22:05 +0000
            Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-03 16:39 -0800
              Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-04 12:15 +0100
            Re: function pointer question Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-01-06 20:33 +0000
              Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 17:01 -0800
        Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-03 06:08 +0000
          Re: function pointer question "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 12:40 -0800
            Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 04:30 +0000
              Re: function pointer question "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 17:05 -0800
      Re: function pointer question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-03 17:20 -0500
        Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-03 16:48 -0800
        Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-05 08:39 +0000
          Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 12:32 +0000
            Re: function pointer question highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-06 13:59 +0100
              Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 13:57 +0000
              Re: function pointer question antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-06 14:50 +0000
                Re: function pointer question highcrew <high.crew3868@fastmail.com> - 2026-01-06 21:44 +0100
                Re: function pointer question scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-06 22:08 +0000
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 05:59 -0800
                Re: function pointer question antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-07 09:25 +0000
                Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-07 11:37 +0100
            Re: function pointer question Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-06 15:47 +0200
              Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 14:01 +0000
            Re: function pointer question David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-06 15:55 +0100
              Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 16:44 +0000
            Re: function pointer question scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-06 15:41 +0000
              Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 16:45 +0000
            Re: function pointer question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 10:58 -0500
              Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-06 16:49 +0000
                Re: function pointer question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-06 12:09 -0500
                Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-07 21:18 +0000
              Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-09 09:14 -0800
              Re: function pointer question Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-01-10 19:17 -0800
                Re: function pointer question "James Russell Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-10 22:39 -0500
                Re: function pointer question Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-11 11:49 -0800
        Re: function pointer question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-05 06:47 -0500
  Re: function pointer question James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-02 14:03 -0500
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 19:41 +0000
  Re: function pointer question bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-01-02 19:18 +0000
    Re: function pointer question Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-02 11:43 -0800
    Re: function pointer question Michael Sanders <porkchop@invalid.foo> - 2026-01-02 19:44 +0000

csiph-web