Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #17586

Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets?

Show all headers | View raw

Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
> As per subject.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tom R.

This is Usenet, not a web form or chat room.  I suggest reading
some of the other articles posted here to get a feeling for the
best style.

Please put your question in the body of the post, not just in
the title.

Posting again after 18 minutes to "bump" the original post is not
useful.  If you don't get a response after a day or so, it *might*
be time to worry.

Your actual questions, copied from the title:

> Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard?

Implicit int was removed from the language by the C99 standard.
(C11 did not restore it.)  Many, probably most, C compilers still
support it as an extension (or just because they don't yet conform
to C99).

> What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets?

The gets function was removed completely.

I'm not aware of any other deprecated (note spelling) features that were
removed by C11.  In particular, old-style function declarations and
definitions are still in the language.

You can get a draft, nearly equivalent to the final C11 standard, at
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf>.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Thread

Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-18 22:18 +0000
  Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-18 22:36 +0000
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-18 22:55 +0000
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-19 06:05 +0000
  Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-18 15:01 -0800
    Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-19 10:54 +0000
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-19 12:21 +0000
        Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-02-19 19:53 +0000
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-19 12:15 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-19 13:58 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-19 17:19 -0600
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-19 18:41 -0500
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-20 01:51 -0600
            Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-20 02:19 -0800
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 00:45 -0800
      Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-20 00:52 -0800
        Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-20 13:25 +0000
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-20 10:33 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-02-21 19:51 +0000
            Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-21 15:11 -0500
              Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-02-22 08:35 +0100
                Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-22 02:18 -0800
          Re: Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What about other previously depreciated constructions eg gets? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-03-01 05:57 -0500

csiph-web