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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #3309 > unrolled thread

Mixed declarations and "code"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Mixed declarations and "code" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 11:11 -0700
    Re: Mixed declarations and "code" Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-05 11:21 -0700
      Re: Mixed declarations and "code" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-05 11:25 -0700
        Re: Mixed declarations and "code" Uno <merrilljensen@q.com> - 2011-05-08 01:11 -0700

#3309 — Mixed declarations and "code"

s5n <sgbeal@googlemail.com> raised this point in comp.lang.c.moderated.

The C99 foreword, in the list of major changes between C90 and C99,
mentions "mixed declarations and code".  The word "code" is ambiguous
and misleading.  The standard doesn't provide a definition for it,
and there are several examples where the word "code" clearly refers
generally to any C source code, including statements, declarations,
and directives.

Suggestion: Change "mixed declarations and code" to "mixed
declarations and statements".

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3310

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> The C99 foreword, in the list of major changes between C90 and C99,
> mentions "mixed declarations and code".  The word "code" is ambiguous
> and misleading.  The standard doesn't provide a definition for it,
> and there are several examples where the word "code" clearly refers
> generally to any C source code, including statements, declarations,
> and directives.
>
> Suggestion: Change "mixed declarations and code" to "mixed
> declarations and statements".

I think that you're about 12 years late to suggest a change to
C99.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3313

Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> The C99 foreword, in the list of major changes between C90 and C99,
>> mentions "mixed declarations and code".  The word "code" is ambiguous
>> and misleading.  The standard doesn't provide a definition for it,
>> and there are several examples where the word "code" clearly refers
>> generally to any C source code, including statements, declarations,
>> and directives.
>>
>> Suggestion: Change "mixed declarations and code" to "mixed
>> declarations and statements".
>
> I think that you're about 12 years late to suggest a change to
> C99.

And I posted in the wrong newsgroup; I meant that to go to comp.std.c.

But presumably the next C standard will still include the list of major
changes from C90 to C99, in addition to a new list of changes from C99
to C201X.  My suggestion (which I'll now re-post to the right place) is
to update that section in the next C standard.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3501

On 5/5/2011 11:25 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ben Pfaff<blp@cs.stanford.edu>  writes:
>> Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org>  writes:
>>> The C99 foreword, in the list of major changes between C90 and C99,
>>> mentions "mixed declarations and code".  The word "code" is ambiguous
>>> and misleading.  The standard doesn't provide a definition for it,
>>> and there are several examples where the word "code" clearly refers
>>> generally to any C source code, including statements, declarations,
>>> and directives.
>>>
>>> Suggestion: Change "mixed declarations and code" to "mixed
>>> declarations and statements".
>>
>> I think that you're about 12 years late to suggest a change to
>> C99.
>
> And I posted in the wrong newsgroup; I meant that to go to comp.std.c.
>
> But presumably the next C standard will still include the list of major
> changes from C90 to C99, in addition to a new list of changes from C99
> to C201X.  My suggestion (which I'll now re-post to the right place) is
> to update that section in the next C standard.
>

I compile a lot of "source," and I don't refer to it as "source code" 
ever, as that is less descriptive than the former.

Statements comprise the business end of the source.
-- 
Uno

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web