Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere

From	Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere
Date	2024-09-03 12:20 +0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<20240903122004.0000348e@yahoo.com> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <41520456e45d778ea26805f6f711a05757365bc3@i2pn2.org> <val7m1$3374n$1@dont-email.me> <vb3bkr$1r1t9$6@dont-email.me> <vb41ut$1gbbm$1@dont-email.me> <vb64ph$37k0o$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 04:54:10 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 10:53:33 +0100, Bart wrote:
> 
> > On 02/09/2024 04:32, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:  
> >> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:59:13 +0100, Bart wrote:
> >>   
> >>>      void draw_line(f32 x, y, x2, y2; u32 colour) {
> >>>
> >>> - Allow shared types in parameter lists ...  
> >> 
> >> A bit easier if you flip it around and use Pascal-style syntax:
> >> 
> >>      procedure draw_line(x, y, x2, y2 : f32; colour : u32)
> >> 
> >> See how much more natural that is?  
> > 
> > It becomes a bit less natural when you want to initialise a
> > variable at the same time, or want define a default value for a
> > parameter.
> > 
> > Pascal didn't allow either of those.  
> 
> Ada does, with a very natural extension of the same syntax.

I didn't write Ada program for many years (although probably for less
years than you), but I regularly write VHDL, which syntax is heavily
inspired by Ada. My experience with it can in short be summarized as
"Bart is correct".
VHDL declaration + initialization syntax works not too badly as long as
you want to declare one signal (or constant or variable). It does not
work when you try to combine declaration of two signals of the same
type. It's so unnatural that I don't even know if it's at all allowed.

Now, Bart seems to think that ability to combine several declarations of
the same type is important. Here I disagree. At best, it's occasionally
nice.

> Even
> allows passing arguments by keyword, too.
> 

By keyword? Do you mean call with named parameters association?

> Note that even C++ has now had to allow function return types to be 
> specified at the end of the prototype instead of up front, because
> type interdependencies don’t work very well otherwise.

Likely happened after I stopped following.

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

Thread

on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-20 18:48 +0200
  Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-20 14:03 -0300
    Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-20 19:18 +0200
      Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-20 19:21 +0200
      Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-20 14:34 -0300
        Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-20 22:18 +0200
    Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-21 04:42 +0000
      Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-21 08:17 -0300
        Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-21 13:34 +0100
          Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-21 10:01 -0300
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-21 16:54 +0300
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-21 11:21 -0300
        Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-22 08:40 +0000
          Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-22 02:21 -0700
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-22 11:29 +0100
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-22 11:12 -0700
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-22 18:37 +0000
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-23 00:39 +0100
          Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-22 11:00 +0100
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-08-22 08:10 -0300
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-22 17:06 +0000
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-23 12:47 +0200
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-23 12:25 +0100
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-23 13:32 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-23 17:57 +0200
  Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-21 03:30 +0000
    Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-21 09:19 +0100
      Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-21 10:11 +0100
    Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-25 12:40 +0200
      Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-08-27 06:52 +0000
        Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 10:46 +0200
          Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 11:03 +0200
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 11:08 +0200
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 11:47 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 11:52 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 13:56 +0200
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 20:04 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 20:44 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-27 19:59 +0100
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 21:36 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 22:02 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 23:42 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-02 03:32 +0000
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-09-02 10:53 +0100
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-03 04:54 +0000
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-09-03 06:12 +0000
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-03 12:20 +0300
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-27 21:09 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-29 09:24 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-08-29 09:37 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-03 04:56 +0000
        Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-27 12:28 +0000
          Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-27 18:45 -0700
            Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 19:23 -0700
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-28 15:28 +0100
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 08:37 -0700
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 08:22 -0700
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:06 -0700
              Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-28 09:31 -0700
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-28 19:39 +0200
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-08-28 14:34 -0400
                Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-28 13:06 -0700

csiph-web