Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Future of C
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:27:55 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <lnin9y8f84.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <0231327b-9e28-46e4-9178-46c881a8dd91@googlegroups.com> <c7g9add2d3mgc6ksk4c4f4500ivubjuog9@4ax.com> <20180311161525.ac591de531b83d6b14b2cd43@gmail.com> <90236828-48d7-4ee5-9b86-4cedd0e29b5f@googlegroups.com> <hwhpC.902622$F74.120435@fx47.am4> <d9d91c28-fb38-400b-8b92-ce7ce7d2b9cd@googlegroups.com> <3r7jne-t3h.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> <8e201938-ada4-42d9-8ae6-13b1047306e2@googlegroups.com> <tmhkne-4af.ln1@gangtai.grep.be> <p88thk$6ce$1@dont-email.me> <lpUpC.8300$TP2.7319@fx01.am4> <p89c98$na6$1@dont-email.me> <0iXpC.1451$kF1.89@fx41.am4> <p8b317$998$1@dont-email.me> <40d27639-bea8-460a-add2-f5ad2f26cbdc@googlegroups.com> <p8bh23$bqk$1@dont-email.me> <5e80c990-fe53-4d7e-8a81-bc411cc21d76@googlegroups.com> <lnvady8oa0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <2ac9ccf7-5b25-4822-8dbd-5b749bed2c07@googlegroups.com> <lnr2om8kc1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <f0c0d057-6c7e-47bf-a10e-c6a7184da614@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="afe9607107c97cf059941548cf335e32"; logging-data="19194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wVer7ClEwE3GB00w9GGAq"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zdTPMK7tpwMsBxH/Vs3QU6JdKbU= sha1:K+qm5yucT6zrFaOYT2KRtZESUA8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:127825

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:37:51 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> If you can cite a C implementation whose maintainers had great
>> >> difficulty implementing VLAs in a reasonable manner, then you might
>> >> have a valid point.
>> 
>> I infer from your failure to cite an example that you can't.
>
> There are certainly C implementations whose maintainers haven't
> implemented VLAs.  It would seem likely that they judge the value of
> supporting VLAs insufficient to justify the effort required to do so.

That doesn't necessarily imply that it would have been difficult, just
that they decided it wasn't worth the effort.

You've still provided no examples, only speculation.

[SNIP]

I'm curious whether any compilers predefine __STDC_NO_VLA__.  Pre-C11
compilers wouldn't have any reason to do so, and every C11 compiler I
know of supports VLAs.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"