Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94192 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-28 09:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-28 20:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:35 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 09:39 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:46 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-28 17:53 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-28 21:21 +0200
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 20:36 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:55 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:02 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:03 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:13 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:22 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 08:47 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-03 07:44 -0400
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 04:56 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-03 13:18 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:43 -0500
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-03 21:43 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2016-10-03 22:28 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 04:51 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-03 13:10 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 05:48 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-03 14:03 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-03 14:24 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 07:07 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-03 19:16 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 07:16 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-03 07:45 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-03 07:57 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-03 08:21 -0400
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 05:31 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-03 06:43 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-03 15:08 +0200
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:22 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:08 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 16:57 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 14:19 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:50 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 17:03 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-29 01:08 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 17:33 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-29 01:02 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 01:39 -0500
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-29 00:48 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:59 -0500
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:09 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:07 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:53 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 22:13 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-01 09:36 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-01 13:04 -0400
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-30 14:20 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 22:30 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-10-02 07:30 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 01:51 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-01 10:31 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 23:22 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 06:15 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-01 15:28 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-01 10:07 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-01 19:52 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-02 20:38 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-02 03:37 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:35 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-02 15:17 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 18:29 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 01:09 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-04 08:21 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-03 13:12 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-03 14:34 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-04 00:47 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-04 07:49 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-04 07:50 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-04 10:42 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:47 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-04 20:58 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-05 18:14 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 02:15 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-05 22:44 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 03:12 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 15:38 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 19:50 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:25 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 21:19 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 18:11 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 06:38 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-06 00:36 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 07:33 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-06 09:00 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-07 00:32 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 05:05 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-07 08:13 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-07 00:20 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 17:01 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-10-05 12:45 -0500
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-05 11:12 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-05 14:41 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 08:01 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-05 08:41 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 10:29 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 12:29 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-05 14:35 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-05 18:15 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-05 10:38 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-05 19:14 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-05 11:56 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 11:57 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-05 12:18 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-05 21:49 +0200
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:07 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-05 16:23 -0400
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-06 14:26 +0200
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-05 13:56 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-06 14:17 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-06 15:53 +0200
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-06 09:12 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-06 11:28 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 15:31 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 15:32 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-05 19:43 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:05 +1300
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-10-02 07:24 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-01 09:39 +0000
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-01 14:11 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:47 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:25 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-28 12:59 -0400
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-28 18:30 +0100
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 12:10 -0700
Re: Is there any place to talk about language features? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 20:20 +0100
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Is there any place to talk about language features? |
| Message-ID | <d8b59afd-d77a-4769-9a17-b5df41c08a92@googlegroups.com> |
Does C have an special usergroup/site to talk about language features?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2dwrnbj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94192 |
Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
> Does C have an special usergroup/site to talk about language features?
Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This
is certainly a good place.
If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example?
--
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 | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf11ed65-3eee-44cf-9612-680b4185af90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94193 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson wrote: > Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This > is certainly a good place. > > If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? > New features for the language, not defined yet. Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar information about C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 17:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nsgsh5$ce4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94195 |
On 28/09/16 17:46, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson > wrote: >> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? >> This is certainly a good place. >> >> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? >> > New features for the language, not defined yet. > > Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and > whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar > information about C. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the comp.std.c newsgroup - to discuss the existing C Standards and proposed changes to those Standards. That is, comp.std.c exists to discuss the language definition, and comp.lang.c exists to discuss the working out of that language definition in actual standard C programs. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsh572$h09$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94195 |
On 28/09/16 18:46, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson > wrote: >> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? >> This is certainly a good place. >> >> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? >> > New features for the language, not defined yet. > > Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and > whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar > information about C. > > A key difference here is that C++ is very willing to consider and adopt new language features, so there are plenty of places where potential new features are discussed. But for C, language stability is very important - so very few new features are added. Compare the Wikipedia pages for C11 and C++11 - C11 added only a few features to the language and the standard library, while C++11 has been described as almost being a new language from C++03. So discussions of new features for C are mostly hypothetical - it is rare that they become reality, in comparison to C++. (This is not a criticism of C or of C++. Sometimes language stability is what you want, sometimes powerful new features is what you want. It's good that we have both languages to choose from.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nsh635$kb4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94195 |
On 28/09/2016 17:46, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This >> is certainly a good place. >> >> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? >> > New features for the language, not defined yet. > > Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar information about C. This group isn't very busy so proposals for new C features are welcome to most here I think. There have been plenty of such discussions in the past. But beware that it will just be talk: C evolves extremely slowly, and then only with very uninteresting features. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f35f731-ab20-4bbe-a26e-8c3af67f6984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94214 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:36:25 PM UTC-3, Bart wrote:
> On 28/09/2016 17:46, Thiago Adams wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This
> >> is certainly a good place.
> >>
> >> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example?
> >>
> > New features for the language, not defined yet.
> >
> > Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar information about C.
>
> This group isn't very busy so proposals for new C features are welcome
> to most here I think. There have been plenty of such discussions in the
> past.
>
> But beware that it will just be talk: C evolves extremely slowly, and
> then only with very uninteresting features.
>
> --
The feature I am thinking about is "default initializers"
Today we can do:
struct Point { int x; int y; };
struct Point pt1 = { 1, 2 };
and this is useful when the initialization change by instance basis.
But, for some types the initialization is the same or it have common initiation part for all instances.
To avoid specify the common initialization everywhere the solution is create a macro.
struct Z { int type; };
#define Z_INIT { 4 }
struct Z z1 = Z_INIT;
The alternative solution that I am thinking is to define a default initializer and then the "init" macro will not be necessary anymore.
struct Z
{
int type = 4; //new syntax
int other;
};
struct Z z;
//z.type is 4 here
//z.other is not initialized (for performance?)
The following syntax would be equivalent:
struct Z z = {default};
And this is also valid:
struct Z * p = malloc(sizeof * p);
*p = (struct Z){default};
struct Y { struct Z z; };
or
struct Y {
struct Z z = { .type = 4 }; //overrides the default
};
struct Y y; //z is default initialized
More..
typedef const char* String = NULL;
String s; //default initialized
The variable is default-initialized if it have at least one default-initialization information, otherwise, everything is as C99.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f9911aa-c5dc-4f19-a71f-41bbce4f4a4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94216 |
To turn off the default initialization we could have
struct Z z = {void};
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:03 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <e52pguF3ol7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94216 |
On 09/29/16 09:55 AM, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:36:25 PM UTC-3, Bart wrote: >> On 28/09/2016 17:46, Thiago Adams wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This >>>> is certainly a good place. >>>> >>>> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? >>>> >>> New features for the language, not defined yet. >>> >>> Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar information about C. >> >> This group isn't very busy so proposals for new C features are welcome >> to most here I think. There have been plenty of such discussions in the >> past. >> >> But beware that it will just be talk: C evolves extremely slowly, and >> then only with very uninteresting features. >> >> -- > > > The feature I am thinking about is "default initializers" <snip> What you go on to describe is pretty much C++11 initialisation. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6927548f-a1eb-4f46-a78d-5b8a15b3cf3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94219 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-3, Ian Collins wrote: > On 09/29/16 09:55 AM, Thiago Adams wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:36:25 PM UTC-3, Bart wrote: > >> On 28/09/2016 17:46, Thiago Adams wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-3, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>>> Do you mean features of the C language as it's currently defined? This > >>>> is certainly a good place. > >>>> > >>>> If that's not what you mean, can you provide an example? > >>>> > >>> New features for the language, not defined yet. > >>> > >>> Nowadays is very easy to find information about the progress and whats is going on on C++ standard, but I am not finding similar information about C. > >> > >> This group isn't very busy so proposals for new C features are welcome > >> to most here I think. There have been plenty of such discussions in the > >> past. > >> > >> But beware that it will just be talk: C evolves extremely slowly, and > >> then only with very uninteresting features. > >> > >> -- > > > > > > The feature I am thinking about is "default initializers" > > <snip> > > What you go on to describe is pretty much C++11 initialisation. > Some differences: - don't require the concept of constructor. - I guess C++ didn't add the designators in initialization - This one we can turn-off -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:22 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <e52qkaF40dfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94220 |
On 09/29/16 10:13 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:03:36 PM UTC-3, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 09/29/16 09:55 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> The feature I am thinking about is "default initializers"
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> What you go on to describe is pretty much C++11 initialisation.
>>
>
> Some differences:
>
> - don't require the concept of constructor.
In this case, neither does C++.
> - I guess C++ didn't add the designators in initialization
No, that's one very useful feature they stubbornly refuse to add!
> - This one we can turn-off
Features can be turned off by not using them :)
I do find the
struct Z
{
int type = 4; //new syntax
int other;
};
syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing
code.
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e5ek9rFs9kpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94222 |
Ian Collins wrote: > I do find the [...] > syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing > code. The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where support ceased decades ago. Suppose someone were starting to learn "C with features" down the road, only to find that the system they're targeting doesn't support these features? If I had a job teaching (or writing books about) C, I'd teach C89, giving my students the widest possible base for future jobs (at the expense of a few inconveniences). On the point, I agree that C has quite a few aspects that range from mere oddities all the way to design flaws, but being aware of those and dealing with them is part of using the language. If you can't, use a different language. I mostly use Python, R, and C, and I always enjoy switching between languages (and the C compiler enjoys bitching about missing semicolons and the '<-' operator). But C is always where I feel most at home. robert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 07:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nstgap$hu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94410 |
On 10/03/2016 04:47 AM, Robert Latest wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: >> I do find the > > [...] > >> syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing >> code. > > The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking > existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a > plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where > support ceased decades ago. Suppose someone were starting to learn "C with > features" down the road, only to find that the system they're targeting > doesn't support these features? If I had a job teaching (or writing books > about) C, I'd teach C89, giving my students the widest possible base for > future jobs (at the expense of a few inconveniences). Then it doesn't matter what features get added to future versions of the standard, those compilers will never conform with the new versions, and people following your advice will never use the new features - so how would those compilers be broken by such changes to the C standard? How would such programmers be inconvenienced by those changes? Keep in mind that we're talking about additions that "wouldn't break any existing code" - so the fact that they might need to compile their code with a more up-to-date compiler isn't a problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 04:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35ec6287-7c8c-429f-931b-c5691b64cc9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94411 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:44:47 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 10/03/2016 04:47 AM, Robert Latest wrote: > > Ian Collins wrote: > >> I do find the > > > > [...] > > > >> syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing > >> code. > > > > The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking > > existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a > > plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where > > support ceased decades ago. Suppose someone were starting to learn "C with > > features" down the road, only to find that the system they're targeting > > doesn't support these features? If I had a job teaching (or writing books > > about) C, I'd teach C89, giving my students the widest possible base for > > future jobs (at the expense of a few inconveniences). > > Then it doesn't matter what features get added to future versions of the > standard, those compilers will never conform with the new versions, and > people following your advice will never use the new features - so how > would those compilers be broken by such changes to the C standard? How > would such programmers be inconvenienced by those changes? Keep in mind > that we're talking about additions that "wouldn't break any existing > code" - so the fact that they might need to compile their code with a > more up-to-date compiler isn't a problem. > In an sense that's true. Once a language is out and into the wild, the set of acceptable programs can only get narrower, until all of the legacy systems are so far out of date they can be ignored. But if one of the legacy systems is Microsoft Windows, there's no way anyone writing general-purpose hosted code can say that platform can be ignored. But it's not psychological reality to refrain from using new features until all the old systems are gone. So new versions create a situation where code compiles in some places, not others, where people don't realise they are using features which may not be supported elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 13:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nsti9v$ola$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94413 |
On 03/10/2016 12:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:44:47 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 10/03/2016 04:47 AM, Robert Latest wrote: >>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>> I do find the >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing >>>> code. >>> >>> The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking >>> existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a >>> plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where >>> support ceased decades ago. Suppose someone were starting to learn "C with >>> features" down the road, only to find that the system they're targeting >>> doesn't support these features? If I had a job teaching (or writing books >>> about) C, I'd teach C89, giving my students the widest possible base for >>> future jobs (at the expense of a few inconveniences). >> >> Then it doesn't matter what features get added to future versions of the >> standard, those compilers will never conform with the new versions, and >> people following your advice will never use the new features - so how >> would those compilers be broken by such changes to the C standard? How >> would such programmers be inconvenienced by those changes? Keep in mind >> that we're talking about additions that "wouldn't break any existing >> code" - so the fact that they might need to compile their code with a >> more up-to-date compiler isn't a problem. >> > In an sense that's true. Once a language is out and into the wild, the set of > acceptable programs can only get narrower, until all of the legacy systems > are so far out of date they can be ignored. But if one of the legacy systems > is Microsoft Windows, there's no way anyone writing general-purpose hosted > code can say that platform can be ignored. > > But it's not psychological reality to refrain from using new features until all > the old systems are gone. So new versions create a situation where code > compiles in some places, not others, where people don't realise they are > using features which may not be supported elsewhere. The reality with a lot of C software is that it won't compile anyway unless: * You're using gcc * You're using the right 'make' * You're using exactly the right set of compiler attributes and command-line options (which make it harder to use any other compiler) * You're compiling under Unix or have imported half the Unix eco-system so that you now depend on a dozen other utilities. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsu5ba$9rd$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #94415 |
On 10/3/2016 7:18 AM, BartC wrote: > On 03/10/2016 12:56, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:44:47 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: >>> On 10/03/2016 04:47 AM, Robert Latest wrote: >>>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> I do find the >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any >>>>> existing >>>>> code. >>>> >>>> The problem with adding new features to any language is not about >>>> breaking >>>> existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there >>>> is a >>>> plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded >>>> systems where >>>> support ceased decades ago. Suppose someone were starting to learn >>>> "C with >>>> features" down the road, only to find that the system they're targeting >>>> doesn't support these features? If I had a job teaching (or writing >>>> books >>>> about) C, I'd teach C89, giving my students the widest possible base >>>> for >>>> future jobs (at the expense of a few inconveniences). >>> >>> Then it doesn't matter what features get added to future versions of the >>> standard, those compilers will never conform with the new versions, and >>> people following your advice will never use the new features - so how >>> would those compilers be broken by such changes to the C standard? How >>> would such programmers be inconvenienced by those changes? Keep in mind >>> that we're talking about additions that "wouldn't break any existing >>> code" - so the fact that they might need to compile their code with a >>> more up-to-date compiler isn't a problem. >>> >> In an sense that's true. Once a language is out and into the wild, the >> set of >> acceptable programs can only get narrower, until all of the legacy >> systems >> are so far out of date they can be ignored. But if one of the legacy >> systems >> is Microsoft Windows, there's no way anyone writing general-purpose >> hosted >> code can say that platform can be ignored. >> >> But it's not psychological reality to refrain from using new features >> until all >> the old systems are gone. So new versions create a situation where code >> compiles in some places, not others, where people don't realise they are >> using features which may not be supported elsewhere. > > The reality with a lot of C software is that it won't compile anyway > unless: > > * You're using gcc > > * You're using the right 'make' > > * You're using exactly the right set of compiler attributes and > command-line options (which make it harder to use any other > compiler) > > * You're compiling under Unix or have imported half the Unix > eco-system so that you now depend on a dozen other utilities. > I have recently dealt with a project which (sort of) builds on Linux, but fails to build (without tweaking) on WS4L, because NTFS doesn't implement some obscure behaviors from Linux/EXTn and similar. meanwhile, Windows is like, "no, I won't allow you to delete a directory which contains files which are currently still open" (whereas on Linux, the files will poof into nonexistence once closed). if lucky, one might encounter projects which internally use sudo/mount/... as part of their build process, or download/patch/compile a specific version of GCC (to compile other parts of the project, or to make a special-purpose cross-compiler), ... would be nice if people were basing these on something a little smaller, say, using LCC or something, for their one-off cross-compilers (or maybe split the download/rebuild GCC part into a separate shell-script from the main project build, so you don't need to go through this part if the cross-compiler is already built...). but, generally, I try to write my code to be "moderately portable", using a feature set limited mostly to the combinations of targets I care about the code running on. I had one thing some-odd years ago where at one point I had almost backed myself into a corner (depending on too much that was specific to 32-bit x86), but have since tried to write code where the core is fairly portable, mostly falling back to OS and HW specific stuff for special cases (so code can be reasonably fast/capable on known targets, but things aren't SOL on unknown targets). some more fundamental assumptions exist, for example, the approximate amount of memory/address-space available. say, one has several 32-bit targets: one has up to 2GB of usable address space, can be casual as virtual-memory will mostly take care of it; another has 64kB of physically-mapped RAM (and 256kB ROM); another has 256kB of physically-mapped RAM (and 2MB ROM); and an intermediate has 8MB of physically-mapped RAM (with the program running from RAM, ROM space mostly used as a filesystem). code naively written to work on one of these will not work on the others. memory handling will be different, and code may have things in it like: GPIO_SET=0x13; //turn some pins on where off in a header, we have something like, say (not real addr's): #define GPIO_GET (*(volatile unsigned int *)0xAC080004) #define GPIO_SET (*(volatile unsigned int *)0xAC080008) one might also casually encounter a custom malloc implementation using hard-coded address ranges or similar (because, the code was written for a target with neither malloc nor an OS), ... and, things like console-handling is done via hard-coded memory-mapped registers for a serial UART interface. so, this part isn't really going to work correctly on a normal PC... a moderate approach exists, where one can target various targets via the use of #ifdef, while ignoring issues outside the scope of where it may run. for the most part this means using a C dialect partway between C95 and C99, and avoiding too much dependence on compiler-specific features (they can be nice, but generally need similar treatment to hardware/target specific features). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnv5k8d.foe.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #94427 |
On 2016-10-03, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > or such... What does this mean? In my native language (which is not English) the literal translation of "or such" means "forget what I just said, it did't make any sense".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsum26$er1$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #94432 |
In <slrn3vfsnv5k8d.foe.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
> > or such...
> What does this mean? In my native language (which is not English)
> the literal translation of "or such" means "forget what I just
> said, it did't make any sense".
"Or other similar things."
--
John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
-- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c64e87fd-bb41-47ae-9414-19bc9b44961b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94410 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:48:09 AM UTC-3, Robert Latest wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > > I do find the > > [...] > > > syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing > > code. > > The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking > existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a > plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where > support ceased decades ago. I think the solution for this dilemma could be: - Leave C language focused on generate code. - Open the door for standard annotations. For instance, create a syntax that is a kind of comment without affect code generation. (Kind of #pragma) (C++ has now [[attributes]]) So compilers will with this features will work with unknown annotations (future) that doesn't affected the generated code. - Experimentation with more generic macros. This could allow experimentation with new features without broke compilers (Hygienic macros). - For last, transpilers C to OlD C. This would require tooling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nsthrs$n6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94412 |
On 03/10/2016 12:51, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:48:09 AM UTC-3, Robert Latest wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> I do find the >> >> [...] >> >>> syntax very useful in C++ and adding it to C wouldn't break any existing >>> code. >> >> The problem with adding new features to any language is not about breaking >> existing code. It's about breaking existing compilers. For C, there is a >> plethora of compilers out there, many still used for embedded systems where >> support ceased decades ago. > > I think the solution for this dilemma could be: > > - Leave C language focused on generate code. > > - Open the door for standard annotations. For instance, create a syntax that is a kind of comment without affect code generation. (Kind of #pragma) (C++ has now [[attributes]]) > So compilers will with this features will work with unknown annotations (future) that doesn't affected the generated code. > > - Experimentation with more generic macros. This could allow experimentation with new features without broke compilers (Hygienic macros). For me, the question of improvements to C is academic. I've always used my own languages, and have decided to continue doing that. (Because I code for pleasure and my own language is nicer to use. IMO.) So my main need requirement of C is as an intermediate language (for the purposes of portability and, depending on compiler, more efficient code). Then I don't need any advanced features. (If anything, it could be simpler and not get in the way so much. There have been specialist languages for this but they have their own problems.) Talking about them is still interesting however. > - For last, transpilers C to OlD C. This would require tooling. I was about to look up 'OlD C' but then realised you meant Old C. If so, that's sort of what I do (but to just 'C' rather than 'Old C'). Although, it's not quite as simple as it sounds, if you have new features that don't quite match what's already in C. Also if you want the result to be human readable. (One example: your source language always interprets an 'int' type as 32 bits wide by default. But do you translate it as 'int', which may have different widths depending on the target C implementation, or as the less readable 'int32_t'?) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web