Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100 |
| Last post | 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 458 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
"A diagram of C23 basic types" Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +1100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-02 06:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:20 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-03 20:35 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 09:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 07:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 10:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 04:17 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 11:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 20:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 10:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 10:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 15:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 14:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 11:12 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:33 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:20 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:02 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 19:32 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:21 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 01:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 05:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 01:28 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 19:37 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 21:48 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:01 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:26 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 20:11 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 09:53 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:37 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 10:10 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 17:21 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 14:27 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 10:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-10 12:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:42 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 15:06 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 15:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 16:55 +0200
C implementation headers [was Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 13:47 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-12 05:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 13:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 02:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 04:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-02 09:34 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 16:15 -0800
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:42 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-06 11:26 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:08 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 20:38 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 03:05 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 12:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:36 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 14:30 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 23:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-04 14:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 09:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 14:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-04 14:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 03:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 21:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-07 17:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 21:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 18:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 04:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-14 17:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 17:46 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 13:36 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 22:33 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-14 23:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 17:57 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 23:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:06 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 15:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:04 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 20:53 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-17 17:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-19 17:15 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-19 23:15 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-21 20:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:28 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 01:07 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-22 19:30 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:40 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-22 00:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 21:02 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:29 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 18:57 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 02:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 18:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:19 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 14:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 03:03 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:38 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 23:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2025-07-29 10:49 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 19:43 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 04:15 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:40 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-15 19:22 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 12:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 19:54 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-15 22:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 23:48 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-16 07:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 13:00 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 16:42 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-16 14:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 20:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 23:13 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-17 01:05 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-17 01:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-28 07:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:57 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-01 06:17 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 16:11 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-17 23:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 02:10 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-28 19:20 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:37 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 13:14 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-28 23:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-29 08:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-30 17:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-29 05:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-29 01:24 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:02 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-29 19:25 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-29 19:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:27 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:02 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:12 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:18 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:14 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 23:49 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 23:18 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 22:37 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 22:46 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 23:57 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 11:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 11:37 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 12:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-19 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 20:29 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-07 22:30 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-07 22:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-08 10:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 14:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:25 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 21:29 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-08 13:00 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:55 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-08 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:32 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 20:53 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 22:30 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 12:23 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 10:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:32 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:24 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:35 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 11:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:33 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 00:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 16:56 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 18:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-09 18:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:17 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:34 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:29 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:18 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-04 02:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 17:28 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:17 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 16:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 16:38 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-02 15:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-02 19:26 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 17:41 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:00 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:47 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 18:54 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:27 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 03:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-02 21:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 05:11 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-03 09:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:19 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 05:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-03 22:00 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 04:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-07 18:31 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-07 18:55 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-07 14:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 09:45 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-30 17:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 05:59 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 13:42 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 14:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 14:14 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 15:29 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-30 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:04 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-02 23:24 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 10:59 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 13:49 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:11 -0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:49 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:44 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-03 23:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 12:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 06:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 15:59 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 15:26 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-03 16:52 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:31 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:51 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 12:29 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:19 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 20:54 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 16:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:45 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:41 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 11:07 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:58 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:40 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 13:39 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:10 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:12 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:11 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 14:45 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 16:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-02 19:23 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-02 18:04 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 15:16 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:22 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-02 23:43 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-03 11:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-04 04:50 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:38 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 15:14 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:26 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-02 18:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-03 00:35 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-03 06:21 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-03 13:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-02 14:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-02 15:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-02 13:09 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 08:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 15:05 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-03 13:19 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2025-04-03 21:13 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 11:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 16:01 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 09:43 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 10:28 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 03:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 15:46 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-04 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 17:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-04-04 16:12 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-04 19:25 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:18 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:34 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-04 18:49 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-04 21:08 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 19:15 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-05 17:36 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-08 02:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-07 23:26 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-04-05 19:56 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 14:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 16:47 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-08 16:08 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 11:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:20 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:32 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 08:53 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 14:46 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:34 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 17:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-08 22:47 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 21:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 23:12 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 10:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:50 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-14 01:24 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 12:55 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 06:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-06 13:25 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-08 15:48 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-08 16:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 22:53 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-08 14:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-08 16:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 08:49 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:21 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 15:03 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-09 21:32 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:58 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 15:36 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-03 15:02 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-03 13:06 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-27 12:05 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-28 16:27 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-04-29 13:38 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 15:06 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 09:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 13:27 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-27 00:39 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-27 02:40 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 19:33 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 14:16 -0500
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-15 19:41 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-16 03:55 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-20 00:16 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-07-20 07:58 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-07-20 11:28 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-29 04:44 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-29 17:13 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-26 12:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 13:23 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-26 23:58 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-27 03:51 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-27 13:44 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:01 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-26 15:57 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-26 16:10 +0100
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 12:31 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-26 23:59 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-26 21:09 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-26 17:10 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 04:33 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-27 17:56 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 05:03 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-28 23:18 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:37 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-30 21:59 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-28 20:51 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:40 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-29 20:52 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" - correction "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-29 12:14 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-27 14:02 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-27 14:52 +0300
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-27 20:48 +0200
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-28 23:59 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-29 09:23 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 00:56 +0000
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-07-29 21:13 -0400
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:34 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 09:48 -0700
Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:51 -0700
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cpwHP.5714$j2D.2752@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #391876 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >On 4/2/25 14:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >... >> When a thing exists, the job of the standard is to standardize what >> exists, and not invent some caricature of it. > >In the process of standardization, the committee is supposed to exercise >it's judgement, and if that judgement says that there's a better way to >do something than the way for with there is existing practice, they have >an obligation to correct the design of that feature accordingly. Ha. That type of altruism lasts only about a minute in a standards committee meeting. In reality, rather than breaking existing APIs, the standards committee will introduce new ones (posix_spawn, anyone?).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsjgk0$207gb$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #391828 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>
>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's
>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>
>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/
>>>
>>
>>So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>
> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems language.
> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated processing
> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types
C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
but can be less efficient than using VMT-s, so C has advantage for
basic numeric "cores".
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsjkc8$252sk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391835 |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100 >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>>On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote: >>>> >>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's >>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard >>>> into a graph of inclusions: >>>> >>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/ >>>> >>> >>>So much for C being a 'simple' language. >> >> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems language. >> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated processing >> using complex types for example are far better done in C++. > >C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types >C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using >Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer, Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't support them given they're all C compilers too. >but can be less efficient than using VMT-s, so C has advantage for >basic numeric "cores". Maybe, my knowledge of the internals of C++ std:array and std::vector arn't good enough to argue the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-02 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vsk5h5$2kpbg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391839 |
On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC) > antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100 >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's >>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard >>>>> into a graph of inclusions: >>>>> >>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language. >>> >>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems language. >>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated processing >>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++. >> >> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types >> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using >> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer, > > Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't support > them given they're all C compilers too. All C++ compilers are also C compilers? > >> but can be less efficient than using VMT-s, so C has advantage for >> basic numeric "cores". > > Maybe, my knowledge of the internals of C++ std:array and std::vector arn't > good enough to argue the point. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 08:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsli5n$884d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391860 |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:09:08 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled: >On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC) >> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100 >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens Gustedt's >>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard >>>>>> into a graph of inclusions: >>>>>> >>>>>> >https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-basic-types/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language. >>>> >>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems language. > >>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated >processing >>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++. >>> >>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types >>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using >>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer, >> >> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't support >> them given they're all C compilers too. > >All C++ compilers are also C compilers? Name a current one (ie not a cross compiler from the 90s) that isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 15:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vsm13n$mqsh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391897 |
On 03/04/2025 10:51, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> All C++ compilers are also C compilers? > > Name a current one (ie not a cross compiler from the 90s) that isn't. Most compilers handling both C and C++ sure have a common code base, but why does it matter? C and C++ are two different languages with a different standard and quite a few different behaviors and even accepted syntax. C has not been a "subset" of C++ for a very long time, although this is something still said on a regular basis. It was maybe true in the early days of C++ but hasn't been in ages. You're probably referring to the C++ front-end of GCC and Clang (which strives to support the same things as GCC to be a drop-in replacement), which supports compiler-specific extensions for both C and C++, some of them borrowing from one another (like C getting some features that were only available in C++, and conversely). But that's not standard C or C++, so that point is kind of moot. If you want to write standard-compliant code only, most of what's been added in C since C99 is not available in C++. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, designated initializers, which are very handy and have been available in C since C99 (25 years ago) have appeared only in C++20, about 20 years later. "Interestingly", committees seem to differ largely on the topic: the C++ committee has been promoting making C a strict subset of C++ for years, while the C committee is a lot less enthused by that idea. C does occasionally and slowly borrow some features from C++ when they do bring value without breaking C, but that's pretty much the extent of it. As of 2025, making C a strict standardized subset of C++ would benefit neither.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsm1to$ogf1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391909 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:05:59 +0200 Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> wibbled: >On 03/04/2025 10:51, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers? >> >> Name a current one (ie not a cross compiler from the 90s) that isn't. > >Most compilers handling both C and C++ sure have a common code base, but >why does it matter? C and C++ are two different languages with a >different standard and quite a few different behaviors and even accepted >syntax. C has not been a "subset" of C++ for a very long time, although >this is something still said on a regular basis. It was maybe true in >the early days of C++ but hasn't been in ages. > >You're probably referring to the C++ front-end of GCC and Clang (which >strives to support the same things as GCC to be a drop-in replacement), >which supports compiler-specific extensions for both C and C++, some of >them borrowing from one another (like C getting some features that were >only available in C++, and conversely). But that's not standard C or >C++, so that point is kind of moot. If you want to write >standard-compliant code only, most of what's been added in C since C99 >is not available in C++. For instance, if I'm not mistaken, designated >initializers, which are very handy and have been available in C since >C99 (25 years ago) have appeared only in C++20, about 20 years later. > >"Interestingly", committees seem to differ largely on the topic: the C++ >committee has been promoting making C a strict subset of C++ for years, >while the C committee is a lot less enthused by that idea. C does >occasionally and slowly borrow some features from C++ when they do bring >value without breaking C, but that's pretty much the extent of it. As of >2025, making C a strict standardized subset of C++ would benefit neither. The point is it doesn't really matter any more. Using a modern C++ compiler you can pick and choose which bits you want to use. Eg if you want to write pure C except for constexpr you can already do that. Ditto binary literals etc. Writing pure C that will compile on a C only compiler is an interesting intellectual exercise but in the real world an irrelevance. Eg the linux kernel whiel written in C has been using gcc specific extensions for decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 16:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20250403162704.00000f76@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391909 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:05:59 +0200 Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> wrote: > For instance, if I'm not mistaken, > designated initializers, which are very handy and have been available > in C since C99 (25 years ago) have appeared only in C++20, about 20 > years later. > AFAIK, even C++23 provides only a subset of C99 designated initializers. The biggest difference is that in C++ initializers have to be specified in the same order as declarations for respective fields.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vsmmkg$1dfrq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391914 |
On 03/04/2025 15:27, Michael S wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:05:59 +0200 > Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> wrote: > >> For instance, if I'm not mistaken, >> designated initializers, which are very handy and have been available >> in C since C99 (25 years ago) have appeared only in C++20, about 20 >> years later. >> > > AFAIK, even C++23 provides only a subset of C99 designated initializers. > The biggest difference is that in C++ initializers have to be > specified in the same order as declarations for respective fields. Ah, you're right: apparently, they still need to be placed in the order of declaration, which is a severe limitation in my book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-06 03:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86plhpfuom.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391914 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:05:59 +0200 > Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> wrote: > >> For instance, if I'm not mistaken, >> designated initializers, which are very handy and have been available >> in C since C99 (25 years ago) have appeared only in C++20, about 20 >> years later. > > AFAIK, even C++23 provides only a subset of C99 designated initializers. > The biggest difference is that in C++ initializers have to be > specified in the same order as declarations for respective fields. More importantly, C++ does not accept compound literals at all. (Disclaimer: to the best of my understanding. I have given up trying to follow what is happening in C++.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85a58xkt6y.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391909 |
Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> writes:
[...]
> "Interestingly", committees seem to differ largely on the topic: the
> C++ committee has been promoting making C a strict subset of C++ for
> years, while the C committee is a lot less enthused by that idea.
Do you have a source for this?
As long as `int class;` is a valid C declaration, C cannot be a
strict subset of C++. (Objective-C, IIRC, *is* a strict superset
of C; it uses '@' for features that aren't in C.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-03 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vsn3vu$1rigp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391860 |
On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC) >> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100 >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens >>>>>> Gustedt's >>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard >>>>>> into a graph of inclusions: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23- >>>>>> basic-types/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language. >>>> >>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems >>>> language. >>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated >>>> processing >>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++. >>> >>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types >>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using >>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer, >> >> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't >> support >> them given they're all C compilers too. > > All C++ compilers are also C compilers? To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 09:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vso9ju$352et$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391954 |
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled: >On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC) >>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled: >>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100 >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens >>>>>>> Gustedt's >>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard >>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23- >>>>>>> basic-types/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language. >>>>> >>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems >>>>> language. >>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated >>>>> processing >>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++. >>>> >>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types >>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using >>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer, >>> >>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't >>> support >>> them given they're all C compilers too. >> >> All C++ compilers are also C compilers? > >To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^) So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 03:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vsoc2k$367mr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391979 |
On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>> language.
>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>> processing
>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>
>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types
>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>
>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>> support
>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>
>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>
>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>
> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>
Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
_____________
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
int *ip = p;
free(p);
printf("done\n");
return 0;
}
_____________
What am I missing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 10:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsoc85$37e62$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391981 |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 03:25:23 -0700
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types
>>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>>
>>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>>> support
>>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>>
>>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>>
>>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>>
>> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>>
>
>Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
>_____________
>#include <stdlib.h>
>#include <stdio.h>
>
>int main() {
> void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
> int *ip = p;
> free(p);
> printf("done\n");
> return 0;
>}
>_____________
>
$ cc -v
Apple clang version 16.0.0 (clang-1600.0.26.6)
Target: arm64-apple-darwin24.3.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
$ cc t.c
$ a.out
done
>What am I missing?
You tell me mate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 03:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vsocdg$367mr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391983 |
On 4/4/2025 3:28 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 03:25:23 -0700
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>> On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types
>>>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>>>
>>>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>>>
>>>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>>>
>>> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>>>
>>
>> Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
>> _____________
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main() {
>> void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
>> int *ip = p;
>> free(p);
>> printf("done\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>> _____________
>>
IIRC, C++ should not allow for that conversion from void* to int*
without a cast. Let me try it on an online compiler... Does not compile:
https://i.ibb.co/3y5NNWRF/image.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 15:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vsons8$3htha$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391983 |
On 04/04/2025 12:28, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 03:25:23 -0700
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>> On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex types
>>>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>>>
>>>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>>>
>>>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>>>
>>> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>>>
>>
>> Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
>> _____________
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main() {
>> void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
>> int *ip = p;
>> free(p);
>> printf("done\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>> _____________
>>
>
> $ cc -v
> Apple clang version 16.0.0 (clang-1600.0.26.6)
> Target: arm64-apple-darwin24.3.0
> Thread model: posix
> InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
> $ cc t.c
> $ a.out
> done
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> You tell me mate.
>
>
You are using a combined C and C++ compiler in C mode, and it compiles
the C program as C. In that sense, most C++ compilers are also C
compilers - or at least, that's how they appear to the user. (gcc has
separate C and C++ compilers, but the "gcc" front-end driver program
runs whichever is appropriate.) MSVC has such poor C support that it is
arguable C++ only, but I know of no C++ compiler that doesn't at least
try to be a C compiler as well.
However, that is of no use when you say that C programmers can just
compiler their code with a C++ compiler if they want "constexpr" or
other new features - that would be handled by "cc -x c++ t.c", forcing
the compiler to use C++ for the code.
It is easy to write code that is valid C23, using a new feature copied
from C++, but which is not valid C++ :
constexpr size_t N = sizeof(int);
int * p = malloc(N);
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsoop0$3jh7a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391993 |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:46:48 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 04/04/2025 12:28, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 03:25:23 -0700
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>> On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>>>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex
>types
>>>>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>>>>
>>>>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>>>>
>>>> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
>>> _____________
>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
>>> int *ip = p;
>>> free(p);
>>> printf("done\n");
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> _____________
>>>
>>
>> $ cc -v
>> Apple clang version 16.0.0 (clang-1600.0.26.6)
>> Target: arm64-apple-darwin24.3.0
>> Thread model: posix
>> InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
>> $ cc t.c
>> $ a.out
>> done
>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> You tell me mate.
>>
>>
>
>You are using a combined C and C++ compiler in C mode, and it compiles
>the C program as C. In that sense, most C++ compilers are also C
Err yes! Thats the whole point!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 17:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vsotra$3nn12$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391994 |
On 04/04/2025 16:02, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 15:46:48 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>> On 04/04/2025 12:28, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 03:25:23 -0700
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>>> On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>>>>> On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:
>>>>>>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
>>>>>>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gustedt's
>>>>>>>>>>>> blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
>>>>>>>>>>>> into a graph of inclusions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
>>>>>>>>>>>> basic-types/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So much for C being a 'simple' language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>> Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
>>>>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>>>>> using complex types for example are far better done in C++.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> C99 has VMT (variable modified types). Thanks to VMT and complex
>> types
>>>>>>>>> C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
>>>>>>>>> Fortran 77. Offical C++ has no VMT. C++ mechanizms look nicer,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> them given they're all C compilers too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All C++ compilers are also C compilers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>> So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
>>>> _____________
>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> int main() {
>>>> void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
>>>> int *ip = p;
>>>> free(p);
>>>> printf("done\n");
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> _____________
>>>>
>>>
>>> $ cc -v
>>> Apple clang version 16.0.0 (clang-1600.0.26.6)
>>> Target: arm64-apple-darwin24.3.0
>>> Thread model: posix
>>> InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
>>> $ cc t.c
>>> $ a.out
>>> done
>>>
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> You tell me mate.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You are using a combined C and C++ compiler in C mode, and it compiles
>> the C program as C. In that sense, most C++ compilers are also C
>
> Err yes! Thats the whole point!!
>
Then if we back up the thread to where you said C programmers could just
use a C++ compiler to get new features, you were clearly wrong. Of
course, we all knew you were wrong already, the only question was in
what way you were wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vsp0e1$3qo44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392001 |
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 17:28:42 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled: >On 04/04/2025 16:02, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>> You are using a combined C and C++ compiler in C mode, and it compiles >>> the C program as C. In that sense, most C++ compilers are also C >> >> Err yes! Thats the whole point!! >> > >Then if we back up the thread to where you said C programmers could just >use a C++ compiler to get new features, you were clearly wrong. Of >course, we all knew you were wrong already, the only question was in >what way you were wrong. You think having to add an extra cast is so onorous that it doesn't count as C any more? Any decent C dev would add it by default. Obviously I don't include you in that grouping.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web