Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Are there any conformant C compilers?
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:56:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <86r113rtuo.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <te6n25$16ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <d3626730-882e-4ead-8321-85903aa68217n@googlegroups.com> <te8111$11ga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86zgfss6k3.fsf@linuxsc.com> <te87mu$73l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="afcc7083db196e1e8e1d2e6bebe1e49f"; logging-data="4191228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199PxQ22MOc0SqLeEmTEX+4B16d0oZ4z4M="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u5NPHXbEh2P11/gSzKgLUDbp4Wo= sha1:70me0CQoI9aZbpeYE6JSdhxA1qE=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167232

antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:
>>
>>> IMO main problem with 'constexpr' is that
>>> it is quite limited.
>>
>> If constexpr functions are allowed, constexpr is
>> Turing complete, is it not?
>
> [...]

> If 'constexpr'
> functions were defined requiring that all steps
> are constexpr one would be limited to purely functional
> style.  And currently 'constexpr' is forced to live
> in its own world, so if you need "the same" computation
> in 'constexpr' and in regular code you need to
> copy code and rename identifiers to avoid clashes.

TTBOMK neither of those things is true in C++.  I don't know
what constexpr will look like in C23.  Whatever it is, I
figure it's only a matter of time before the C version of
constexpr adopts at least most of the C++ semantics for
constexpr.