Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { } Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 05:45:19 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 66 Message-ID: <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406161323.00005809@yahoo.com> <86ecy5fjin.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 14:45:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="58fc992bf3d49f6866b08a85a8ed3f48"; logging-data="3979955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HOe3gk0qc2ojhVDrSyK9iLjJm6ACCJ+A=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:x2I1X3OUKRoImDtd4UilW0hF43w= sha1:f0bwkxxkbMS1i+2gfn8qjja7D90= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:392148 Michael S writes: > On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 07:32:16 -0700 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:47:47 -0700 >>> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Furthermore, even if there had been a posting that concerns >>>> only a gcc extension and nothing else, and is one I didn't >>>> respond to, that doesn't excuse your action. It isn't like >>>> this is the first time you have posted something here that >>>> is not about C but only about your fantasy language, and >>>> also not the first time the unsuitability of such postings >>>> has been pointed out. You're a repeat offender. So stop >>>> pretending you are being picked on for no reason. >>> >>> Could you recommend a more appropriate place for Thiago and others >>> where they can discuss C-like fantasy languages? >> >> The newsgroup comp.lang.misc seems like a natural candidate. >> I don't know if comp.lang.misc has an official charter, but at >> least to me new features of any widely used programming language >> would appear to fall under the umbrella of comp.lang.misc. > > My question was not completely abstract. > I did consider starting a discussion about possibility of inclusion of > stackless co-routines into one of the future editions of C. > Naturally, my ideas at this state are extremely in-concrete, much more > so then the post of Thiago Adams that started this thread. > So, if I ever come to it, which by itself is not very likely, do you > think that comp.lang.misc would be better place than comp.lang.c ? Before giving an answer I would like to ask some questions. * How much does the (still fuzzy) idea depend on running in a C environment? Is it very specific to C, or might it be applicable to other procedural/imperative languages (for example, Pascal)? * How much does the current C language impact what you expect to propose? Which aspects of C need to be taken into consideration in forming the proposal, and how strongly do those considerations affect the specifics of what would be proposed? * Assuming a proposed extension has been fully worked out, how broad or how narrow do you think the interest would be in the general C community for a future C standard to incorporate the proposed extension? * Assuming you get to a point where you are happy with the details of a proposed extension, how likely is it that you would write a proposal for the C standard committee, and make the effort needed to shepherd it through the process of being accepted for a future C standard? I realize you probably don't have firm answers for some or all of these questions. As part of figuring everything out, you might want to start a discussion both of the general idea and also about what the answers to these questions might be. I think comp.lang.misc is a good place to have such a discussion, even if your ideas are still in the process of being formed; the discussion could then serve the dual purpose of getting the idea fleshed out and of determining how strongly the idea should be considered as part of a future C standard.