Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #396509

Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

Show all headers | View raw

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

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> [...]
>
>> It isn't just that checking the condition cannot be done in general.
>> To be reliable the parameter length information would need to be
>> part of the function's type.  That has implications for type
>> compatibility and also for the types of pointers-to-function.  And
>> it would mean that removing a 'static' array length specification on
>> a function definition would necessitate also changing the functions
>> declarations, plus any affected pointers-to-function.  Not worth it,
>> even if in theory it were doable.
>
> [...]
>
> In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations
> consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not
> require it.

Without some sort of accompanying rationale, this unadorned
statement of opinion conveys no useful information.

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

Thread

Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-28 09:54 -0800
  Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 16:42 -0800
    Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 07:03 +0000
  Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 03:53 +0000
    Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 18:26 +0200
      Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-31 18:33 +0000
        Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 21:02 +0200

csiph-web