Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:54:34 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <86tsw5k4h1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me> <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me> <vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me> <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvnsvt$3k1mu$1@dont-email.me> <86ldr4yx0x.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvpmm2$3dhl$1@dont-email.me> <vvpsji$4jht$1@dont-email.me> <vvr5mg$l85c$1@dont-email.me> <87wmam4xa5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <868qn2zl1m.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvrs5j$t9go$1@dont-email.me> <86o6vyxoit.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zffi2n7j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 17:54:49 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2033de0fa1edd0bb96ff21c8c7954e9f"; logging-data="742158"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/325rXkVwjy/kkKMleQ7izxEBubP/ZJfg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VgP9/G58EjjO1pv8/qq6GCxxR2s= sha1:qEOw7JVhfStKpOg4gUW57wDnZDE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:396509

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.