Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: What's new in C? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:22:26 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <796b8c57-33da-4a39-99db-fd252a6c337e@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5842a546a2d4559ed11e9ac4721da702"; logging-data="6200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kk8qKEYsZ4DxqAfJPiRk0" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:arJ0Rc2BQ4Mq244V2pJPIMM1eC8= sha1:xCJJ+gHXzoMcUCUe0zLmawHJKIs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:28862 Rui Maciel writes: [...] > IMO, you are missing the point. Currently, the C programming language > is the language as described in C11. It doesn't really matter if that > language is a superset of C89 or not, or if the features provided by > either revision are already adequate. The real important aspect is > that it is supposed to be the standard baseline for all which is > considered the C programming language, so that when someone says that > program X is written in C, we know beforehand that we can use feature > A, B, or C without wasting time finding out if any of those features > are supported in platform M or N. Once we are forced to waste time > and resources dealing with specific variants of the same programming > language, efficiency certainly won't go up, and things won't get any > simpler or easier than they could be, and should be. That's certainly the *purpose* of the C standard. Unfortunately, it hasn't been achieved. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Will write code for food. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"