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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #17748

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/21/2012 02:51 PM, Quentin Pope wrote:
...
> Does that mean that the identifier gets has been returned to the user's 
> namespace? ...

Yes. In the new standard, gets() is only mentioned in two places:
Forward: as something that has been removed.
Footnote 440: as something to compare gets_s() to.

Therefore, it is no longer counts as one of the identifier referred to
by 7.1.3p1.

> ... That sounds like a recipe for confusion if people try to mix 
> old code with C11 code that uses gets for something unrelated to the  
> original function.

True, but all of the other reserved identifiers are either generically
reserved to implementation for certain purposes, specifically reserved
for current standard-defined uses, or specifically reserved in
anticipation of future standard-defined uses. There's no precedent for
adding a specific obsolete identifier to the reserved list - and this
version of the standard establishes a precedent for not doing so.

For the next decade or two, any decent C2011+ compiler will probably
have an option that warns about user-provided definitions of 'gets', but
I wouldn't recommend counting on that in the long-term.

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