Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C23 (C2x) changes Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:01:09 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <86a6isf62y.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86r1cyquwk.fsf@linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b7f56eff5ad6c7d9130605d054ce58ef"; logging-data="21911"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BUrRBTM9JK+aE+VY+66WFDlAKn3HZlwA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:U7AtmnK3frFQmcPwIU22//Bp1rg= sha1:2UdmW9uZvlO9NJEJGr6LG3ikl94= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:163231 Guillaume writes: > Le 06/10/2021 at 13:01, Tim Rentsch a ecrit: > >> Mehdi Amini writes: >> >>> It seems these are some of changes for C23(C2x) standard taken from >>> draft documents: >>> >>> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/23 >>> https://thephd.dev/c-the-improvements-june-september-virtual-c-meeting >>> >>> What do you think of changes ? >> >> My impression is that as time goes on C is looking more and more >> like C++ and less and less like C. That's a bad trend. > > It's really far from it. > > What makes you say that is probably that C borrows some "features" > from C++ at each new revision, but it's not a new trend. > > The "features" it borrows from C++ are nothing that inherently makes > C++ though, and IMO the majority of them are just things that were > long-awaited in C, without breaking the essence of C at all, and > there's no good reason to reinvent the wheel if those are already > defined in C++. > > With that said, from the C++ perspective, Bjarne Stroustrup (and > probably followed by the C++ committee) has always been, and still > is, a vehement proponent of fusing C into C++, making it a strict > subset of C++, instead of the current situation, with two different > languages. Now what kind of influence the C++ committee has over > the C committee, I do not know. I guess the main reason for > including some C++ features into C is the one I stated above: if C > is going to get new features that are similar to some that already > exist in C++, why make them different and further make the two > languages divergent for no good reason? None of the foregoing comments changes my reaction to the proposal summary or my assessment of the trend. > Now, feel free to give relevant examples of C++ features that found > their way into C and which you think have no place there, with a > rationale. I'm all ears. Given your statements above, what is my incentive for doing that?