Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #112176 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-14 06:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-14 14:28 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 06:14 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 06:18 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 08:00 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-14 20:39 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:51 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-14 22:25 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 14:37 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 00:32 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 17:02 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 01:34 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-14 20:28 -0500
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 10:29 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 10:54 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 13:15 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 16:13 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 16:01 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-15 09:27 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-17 16:10 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:13 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 18:44 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:42 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 20:20 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-18 00:32 -0500
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-18 11:06 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 15:26 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-18 14:58 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 01:42 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-15 11:52 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-15 16:07 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:37 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-15 09:52 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 10:36 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-15 17:58 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-15 19:01 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 12:29 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:47 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 19:33 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 13:02 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 13:09 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 22:25 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 14:23 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-15 23:53 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-15 15:39 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:50 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-16 08:40 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:49 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 10:33 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-19 17:50 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 12:12 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-19 19:27 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-06-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 12:05 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-16 12:30 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:54 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-19 13:25 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-20 09:27 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 08:53 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-20 22:12 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-20 13:14 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-20 13:16 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-20 14:04 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-21 15:33 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-20 13:25 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 19:42 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-17 19:18 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-15 23:40 -0500
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-16 13:51 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 12:55 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 13:48 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 19:03 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 15:12 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 20:20 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-16 07:03 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-16 20:01 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-16 19:21 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-06-16 12:07 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-17 16:18 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-06-17 07:19 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-17 19:19 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-18 08:29 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-17 18:49 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-18 16:18 +1200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2017-06-18 06:28 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-16 09:11 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-16 23:37 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 17:04 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 12:56 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 07:10 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 16:38 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-06-16 15:02 +0000
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 08:11 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-18 17:13 +0200
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-14 14:42 -0700
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-14 21:32 +0100
Re: Type system protocols rest atop fundamental data "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 14:28 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <503ddc74-df9d-45b6-af6f-04d81d294bd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112316 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:49:08 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > On 06/15/17 09:23 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > >> However, you seem to be under the impression that C imposes some > >> high-level types on the underlying data. > > > > CAlive uses a stricter typing model, one more like C++. > > One that nobody wants? People want stricter typing models. They don't want C++. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 15:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <eqh0l7Fe853U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #112318 |
On 06/16/17 02:03 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:49:08 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 06/15/17 09:23 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >>>> However, you seem to be under the impression that C imposes some >>>> high-level types on the underlying data. >>> >>> CAlive uses a stricter typing model, one more like C++. >> >> One that nobody wants? > > People want stricter typing models. They don't want C++. There's nothing to stop them using C++ as a stronger typed C. That was how I got started with C++ half a lifetime ago. More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a94a412c-6c37-448b-af91-8a9368dd5087@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112324 |
Ian Collins wrote: > There's nothing to stop them using C++ as a stronger typed C. > That was how I got started with C++ half a lifetime ago. > > More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee > listening to the programmer community. Why C didn't follow > suit is a mystery to me. I was solely going for humor in my replies to you. I'm not the tight shirt many think I am. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 07:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ohvs5d$91t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #112324 |
On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: <snip> > > More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to > the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer community? There's a *reason* we have more than one language. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 20:01 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <eqhhi3Fe853U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #112328 |
On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: > <snip> >> >> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. > > Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less > strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer > community? Not the part I know... -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 19:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oi17bj$nul$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #112329 |
On 16/06/17 09:01, Ian Collins wrote: > On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. >> >> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less >> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer >> community? > > Not the part I know... It was a private call. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oi1a27$1ij$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #112358 |
On 6/16/2017 11:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/06/17 09:01, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> >>>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >>>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. >>> >>> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less >>> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer >>> community? >> >> Not the part I know... > > It was a private call. > Nice. Your input is very helpful. Actually, I had some conversations with the very smart people wrt the threading aspect. Smart people like: http://www.rdrop.com/~paulmck :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 16:18 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <eqjosgFe853U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #112358 |
On 06/17/17 06:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 16/06/17 09:01, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> >>>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >>>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. >>> >>> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less >>> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer >>> community? >> >> Not the part I know... > > It was a private call. Maybe if it had been on speaker, things would have turned out different. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 07:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oi2hfl$dhu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #112382 |
On 17/06/17 05:18, Ian Collins wrote: > On 06/17/17 06:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 16/06/17 09:01, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee >>>>> listening to >>>>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to >>>>> me. >>>> >>>> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to >>>> less >>>> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer >>>> community? >>> >>> Not the part I know... >> >> It was a private call. > > Maybe if it had been on speaker, things would have turned out different. If they'd wanted your opinion, they'd have phoned *you* as well. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <594580a0.5320281@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #112329 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: > >> > >> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to > >> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. > > > > Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less > > strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer > > community? > > Not the part I know... That's the same reasoning bartc, supercat and Hodgin follow. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 08:29 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <eqlhq5Ff4vmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #112408 |
On 06/18/17 07:19 AM, Richard Bos wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 06/16/17 06:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> >>>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >>>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. >>> >>> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less >>> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer >>> community? >> >> Not the part I know... > > That's the same reasoning bartc, supercat and Hodgin follow. No it isn't. It's the reasoning that came from my experience with a decent sized team who had relied too heavily on enums and got themselves in mess do to too many incorrect enum types being passed around. Compiling the code base with a C++ compiler was one (major) step in cleaning up the code. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 18:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3ca937d-17f7-44f3-9489-569b2dca3284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112413 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 3:30:05 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > No it isn't. It's the reasoning that came from my experience with a > decent sized team who had relied too heavily on enums and got themselves > in mess do to too many incorrect enum types being passed around. > Compiling the code base with a C++ compiler was one (major) step in > cleaning up the code. Both strongly-typed and weakly-typed enums have significant uses. In cases where an object may represent a number or a code that indicates why it doesn't represent a number, using an "enum" type may be more descriptive than using a simple integer. Rather than choosing *either* strongly or weakly-typed enums, to the exclusion of each other, it would be better to simply have a langue include both.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 16:18 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <eqmd7pFf4vmU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #112424 |
On 06/18/17 01:49 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 3:30:05 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: >> No it isn't. It's the reasoning that came from my experience with a >> decent sized team who had relied too heavily on enums and got themselves >> in mess do to too many incorrect enum types being passed around. >> Compiling the code base with a C++ compiler was one (major) step in >> cleaning up the code. > > Both strongly-typed and weakly-typed enums have significant uses. In cases > where an object may represent a number or a code that indicates why it doesn't > represent a number, using an "enum" type may be more descriptive than using > a simple integer. Rather than choosing *either* strongly or weakly-typed > enums, to the exclusion of each other, it would be better to simply have > a langue include both. Which is something C++ has and I wish C did as well. Proper named constants remove the need for weakly-typed enums. As an embedded developer I really would like to see something like C++ strongly typed enums in C. There are plenty of use cases where specifying the underlying type of an enum would be useful in embedded C. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e292cf73-b1c6-42ba-8db9-a10c7bc836ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112436 |
On Sunday, 18 June 2017 07:18:16 UTC+3, Ian Collins wrote: > On 06/18/17 01:49 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > > On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 3:30:05 PM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote: > >> No it isn't. It's the reasoning that came from my experience with a > >> decent sized team who had relied too heavily on enums and got themselves > >> in mess do to too many incorrect enum types being passed around. > >> Compiling the code base with a C++ compiler was one (major) step in > >> cleaning up the code. > > > > Both strongly-typed and weakly-typed enums have significant uses. In cases > > where an object may represent a number or a code that indicates why it doesn't > > represent a number, using an "enum" type may be more descriptive than using > > a simple integer. Rather than choosing *either* strongly or weakly-typed > > enums, to the exclusion of each other, it would be better to simply have > > a langue include both. > > Which is something C++ has and I wish C did as well. Proper named > constants remove the need for weakly-typed enums. As an embedded > developer I really would like to see something like C++ strongly typed > enums in C. There are plenty of use cases where specifying the > underlying type of an enum would be useful in embedded C. In last embedded C project I participated (ended last fall) we had uint8_t instead of enum types in all structs just to conserve space. That experience made uint8_t too-weakly-typed enum for my taste. No such issue with C++ where we can have underlying type both for weakly typed enum and strongly typed enum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7f0bc3p8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #112328 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to
>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me.
>
> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to less
> strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the programmer
> community?
>
> There's a *reason* we have more than one language.
Here's what the ANSI C Rationale https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/rat/ says.
It doesn't directly address "listening to the programmer community", but
the desire to reflect common practice and avoid breaking existing code
points in that direction.
Enumerations permit the declaration of named constants in
a more convenient and structured fashion than #define's.
Both enumeration constants and variables behave like integer
types for the sake of type checking, however.
The Committee considered several alternatives for enumeration
types in C:
1. leave them out;
2. include them as definitions of integer constants;
3. include them in the weakly typed form of the UNIX C compiler;
4. include them with strong typing, as, for example, in Pascal.
The Committee adopted the second alternative on the grounds that
this approach most clearly reflects common practice. Doing away
with enumerations altogether would invalidate a fair amount of
existing code; stronger typing than integer creates problems, for
instance, with arrays indexed by enumerations.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 23:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntw3f5dbt.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #112328 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: > <snip> > >> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. > > Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to > less strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the > programmer community? > > There's a *reason* we have more than one language. +1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-18 17:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oi64jn$qjs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #112391 |
On 17/06/17 08:37, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 16/06/17 04:12, Ian Collins wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> More strongly typed enums is one case of the C++ committee listening to >>> the programmer community. Why C didn't follow suit is a mystery to me. >> >> Has it not occurred to you that the C committee might have stuck to >> less strongly typed enums because they, too, listened to the >> programmer community? >> >> There's a *reason* we have more than one language. > > +1 > You mean there are /two/ reasons we have more than one language? Yes, I agree :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3AQ0B.43967$IX3.24106@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #112318 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:49:08 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 06/15/17 09:23 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> >> However, you seem to be under the impression that C imposes some >> >> high-level types on the underlying data. >> > >> > CAlive uses a stricter typing model, one more like C++. >> >> One that nobody wants? > >People want stricter typing models. Please offer what support you can for this assertion. > They don't want C++. Likewise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <989c9589-461c-4677-8162-45f9728f692e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #112339 |
On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 8:56:39 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:49:08 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> On 06/15/17 09:23 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> >> >> However, you seem to be under the impression that C imposes some
> >> >> high-level types on the underlying data.
> >> > CAlive uses a stricter typing model, one more like C++.
> >> One that nobody wants?
> >
> >People want stricter typing models.
>
> Please offer what support you can for this assertion.
You got it:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/DXbsFvzQEHE/r48k6tF7AgAJ
> > They don't want C++.
> Likewise.
As requested:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/DXbsFvzQEHE/r48k6tF7AgAJ
In case it's not immediately clear to you, Scott ... I hold nothing
negative toward you. I enjoy your posts and replies. And I was just
having some wherewithal-fun replying to David, and here to Ian.
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 16:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170616163824.b81044c0481f9a6168738af4@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #112339 |
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 12:56:31 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > > They don't want C++. > > Likewise. Most so-called C++ programmers don't know how to write C++ code but eventually copy C code to build binaries using a C++ compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web