Re: u8"" c11 c23

From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: u8"" c11 c23
Date	2025-10-21 10:26 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87o6q0np3b.fsf@example.invalid> (permalink)
References	<10d5vck$3kufd$1@dont-email.me> <875xc9p674.fsf@example.invalid> <10d7ouh$3rq3g$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/20/2025 7:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> That raises another issue.
>> The <uchar.h> header was introduced in C99.  In C99, C11, and C17,
>> that header defines char16_t and char32_t.  C23 introduces char8_t.
>
> I think for all these typedefs related with language concepts, like
> size_t which is related with sizeof, char8_t which is related with
> u8"" char16_t u"", char32_t  U""... etc.. should be built-in typedefs.
>
> And even others that does not have a association with language
> features like int16_t.

By "built-in typedefs", do you mean typedefs that are visible without
a #include?

That would be unprecedented, but I suppose it could work.  But I'm not
sure it would be all that advantageous.  The type of the result of
sizeof is some implementation-defined unsigned integer type.  The
<stddef.h> header merely provides a consistent name for that type.

I can see that having language features depend (indirectly) on types
defined in library headers is a bit messy, but I don't think it causes
any real problems.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

Thread

u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 15:35 -0300
  Re: u8"" c11 c23 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 15:19 -0700
    Re: u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 07:57 -0300
      Re: u8"" c11 c23 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 10:26 -0700
        Re: u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 15:04 -0300
          Re: u8"" c11 c23 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 11:51 -0700
            Re: u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 16:17 -0300
    Re: u8"" c11 c23 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 11:13 -0800
      Re: u8"" c11 c23 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 14:27 -0800
        Re: u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 07:57 -0300
          Re: u8"" c11 c23 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 04:17 -0800
        Re: u8"" c11 c23 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-21 22:37 -0800
  Re: u8"" c11 c23 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 10:35 +0200
    Re: u8"" c11 c23 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 07:07 -0300
      Re: u8"" c11 c23 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 12:09 +0200
  Re: u8"" c11 c23 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-12-16 14:59 -0600

csiph-web