Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C vs Haskell for XML parsing Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 06:35:12 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: <86o7iqug33.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <576801fa-2842-40dc-bf19-221a5b1cf660n@googlegroups.com> <873505pdw0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1084eb5dd0b1a11121af7ba127734067"; logging-data="2402569"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U6OJl6eBzzk9wc8BWIV4hjaBuB48FrMY=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5RpIILuDqmMlpCYAR1bVLJHGQ8k= sha1:QubMoH+dV1jG8hZD8qafnW2CZzk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:173193 Michael S writes: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 1:47:34?PM UTC+3, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote: > >> [...] I don't pretend to understand all of Ritchie's arguments, >> but I [conclude] Ritchie hated "noalias" and wanted it gone: >> Then it was made so, it was never accepted. [...] > > So, when C99 accepted restrict, was it because it was radically > better than noalias from C89 draft or just because the committee > no longer cared about opinion of DMR? My understanding is that "noalias" was poorly defined, and to the extent that it was defined (often?) had program-wide implications that for all practical purposes made it unusable. The "restrict" qualifier added in C99 doesn't have either of these shortcomings. Clearly "restrict" was done with an eye towards addressing the issues raised by Ritchie in his critique of "noalias".