Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? |
| Date | 2015-02-05 14:18 -0500 |
| Organization | Self |
| Message-ID | <54D3C212.6000602@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <54d34897$0$13647$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <maviu4$dht$1@dont-email.me> <mavqib$ah7$1@dont-email.me> <mavsi2$ibc$1@dont-email.me> <o9e7dahd48s8mcmeintsucfm4vthpbcf9l@4ax.com> |
On 02/05/2015 02:04 PM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:52:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 05/02/15 13:18, David Brown wrote: >>> On 05/02/15 12:08, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > A type known to be at least 64 bits was utterly desperately needed. > Since changing the definition of long to that would have been > impossible, long long seems a reasonable choice, although the actual > name doesn't matter. [u]int64_t, [u]int_least64_t, [u]int_fast64_t and [u]intmax_t all have at least 64 bits, were all introduced in the same version of the C standard, and were all needed for consistency with the other size-named types. "long long" was needed only for compatibility with existing non-standard code, not because a 64-bit type was needed. I argued against making [u]int_least64_t and [u]int_fast64_t mandatory - the only reason any implementation would fail to provide them would be if the implementor knew that implementing those types would be so inefficient on that platform that no customer would want to use them. We should trust implementors to know their customers (or go out of business). That argument was not accepted - but then, I only presented it in usenet newsgroups, not directly to the committee.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com> - 2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2015-02-05 04:40 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 11:08 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 14:18 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 13:52 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:32 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 14:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 15:31 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:58 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:07 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:43 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? jak <please@nospam.tnx> - 2015-03-10 10:43 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 17:01 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:58 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 22:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 18:11 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 12:15 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 03:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:22 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 03:39 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 15:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:31 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:08 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:37 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 11:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:41 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 13:56 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:55 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:16 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 13:34 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:44 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 19:00 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 01:46 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:20 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 06:47 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 10:51 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 19:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-06 15:26 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Jim Barlow <jim.j.barlow@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 21:16 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-10 05:36 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 07:53 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 15:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 19:57 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 10:19 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:32 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 14:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 08:07 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:33 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 09:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-11 14:29 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-11 10:37 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 19:02 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-12 14:55 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:38 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 16:09 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-02-14 18:39 +0200
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 17:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-06 13:34 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:58 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 21:27 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-07 11:31 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:22 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 10:10 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 16:48 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 16:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:36 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:20 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 11:59 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 10:47 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 19:38 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 10:54 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 15:27 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 13:04 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 14:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 18:35 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:47 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:53 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:26 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-05 08:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:12 -0500
csiph-web