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: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 18:37:34 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <lnmuz75voh.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <0231327b-9e28-46e4-9178-46c881a8dd91@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> <lnin9y8f84.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <de720f51-a9a2-4cd9-aa29-2b622525bfc2@googlegroups.com> <lnefkm8ajm.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <c8a59d40-54c5-47e6-8474-8b8d1b86742d@googlegroups.com> <ln1sgl8d5d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <08f373de-3438-464d-a52b-77af9564b4bf@googlegroups.com> <lnbmfp6rnr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <5c5db803-cf2f-4e80-965b-c4950403e362@googlegroups.com> <ln4llh6kku.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <d38b0c9d-25fb-41fd-b9f6-9b0468fd18fb@googlegroups.com> <lnzi395498.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <ac6d59f4-d185-4656-85a6-b496a06623d8@googlegroups.com> <lnvadw53yp.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <c9a75e39-b9f3-4ffd-8f53-1c84c5b3931c@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f74e54f2465810d020c998dae4290ca"; logging-data="13258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FTCtxeX5fDrNfuKXU98FE"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hQcWE22R6SrFeMXUh3dj59HKheM= sha1:YBfkwrhI3EDs8jrGau6fiMzIs88=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:127936

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 12:24:17 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> I agree that "when practical" would be better, but I don't agree that
>> it matters.  Implementers want their implementations to be *useful*.
>> They're not going to make something with horrible performance for
>> the sake satisfying an interpretation of a non-normative footnote.
>
> Nor should they make something with horrible performance for the sake of
> supporting constructs which wouldn't be very useful on the target platform
> anyway.

Which is why *they don't*.  (Unless you have an example, of course.)

> The purpose of the Standard should be to define a class of source texts
> whose meaning would not depend upon the particular implementation used to
> process them.  Whether a particular implementation can process a particular
> source text should be a QoI issue.  What should matter for conformance is
> whether it reports failure in all cases where it can't successfully process
> a program as defined by the Standard.

#!/bin/sh
echo "This C source file of non-negative size exceeds my capacity" 1>&2
exit 1

-- 
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"