Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Opinion sought: Is this strictly conforming C? Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 13:15:16 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <5e795363-40ed-4405-9f4c-86ba404dad77@googlegroups.com> <262d947a-00ed-45bd-b65d-3c22eb172bad@googlegroups.com> <6c87947f-bcf1-49c1-a860-051ebd622d62@googlegroups.com> <2e01e61b-7db1-48c4-9f48-84f818708750@googlegroups.com> <4cb3cf48-9318-456b-9949-08c49599c9bc@googlegroups.com> <289a1642-0378-4841-a3c3-ed32c1c2fd3f@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="57c7f4575bd6481730080871dcbbb5ae"; logging-data="32477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cPcqX1Lg5RgzkF5dvnLx0" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:W+9+Et2IULatiIczLn5bfWIXPgk= sha1:DzWEzNKUbZJol3D8Sg7JvHeH6KY= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:127199 supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 1:22:39 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: >> supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >> [...] >> > Also, as a general matter of philosophy, if most platforms could practically >> > support a behavior, and there any significant quantity of code would benefit >> > from it, what disadvantage would there be to defining the behavior for all >> > implementations that do not pre-define macro STDC_NO_whatever, but not >> > imposing any requirements on implementations that do define that macro? >> >> Clutter. >> >> How many such behaviors should the standard define? How many >> optional __STD_NO_whatever__ macros would have to be predefined? >> By how many pages would the standard have to expand in order to >> define the semantics of all these optional features? > > Not very many. Less than it spends on many other things of marginal > usefulness. The behaviors in question are *not* complicated. Good. Document them. As you've seen, most people here, rightly or wrongly, do not agree with your vision of what the standard should be. Are you interested in proposing changes to the standard? Then do so. Nobody else is going to do the work of gathering your suggestions into a coherent document. [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"