Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Addition of nocode keyword
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:14:20 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <lnd0ec96s3.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <942b0023-9e69-4fb1-b382-e720d87e0d62@googlegroups.com> <ht6dnUjrnKFlKivAnZ2dnUU78cXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <84ba0295-fa2f-42d2-9261-401239afe110@googlegroups.com> <qp89mm$af4$2@reader2.panix.com> <qp99eu$mr6$1@dont-email.me> <qpa70q$rmh$2@reader2.panix.com> <3e29c254-1116-45ad-a635-95de0ba736ad@googlegroups.com> <aa2ea471-2375-424b-af05-4554e3f37c1f@googlegroups.com> <qpaiee$7fr$1@dont-email.me> <1fe7bd3f-1dc4-4fd6-b222-e59868ce1f56@googlegroups.com> <qpceq9$e9g$1@dont-email.me> <qpchos$i87$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6132ddaff9ce58e4242c9cc8b74ae49d"; logging-data="9764"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1810fwudGLZQPY76LClioF2"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EKdKuISQiVc/bAsVQfMTM3j/GQQ= sha1:ghbaGpVUDOLTk/R3/NWye5BDgy4=
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6045

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> Once "implicit int" was removed from the language, you could no longer 
> write "auto x;" - you had to write "auto int x;", "register int x;" or 
> just "int x;" (with the auto implied) for a non-static local variable. 
> As there is no benefit in including the "auto", it is rarely seen.  But 
> compilers /must/ still support "auto int x;" if they try to be 
> conforming, as it is still allowed even in modern standards.  And many 
> still allow "auto x;" (with implicit int) when compiling in lax modes, 
> for support for older code.

Yes, many compilers allow old forms for compatibility with earlier
editions of the standard.  But as far as the standard is concerned,
allowing "auto x;" is no different from allowing any other non-C
syntax.  Backward compatibility extensions have no special status
in the standard; the old forms are simply no longer C.

(Expanding on what you wrote, not disagreeing.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */