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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #71253

Re: Spurious diagnostic messages

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>> And that's why it should be rejected.  Any language feature like
>>> this one, that provides no capability beyond what is fairly
>>> easily available otherwise, if not considered important to/by
>>> the entire C development community, is not important enough
>>> to add to the language.
>>
>> So all of the the maths stuff added to C99 was "considered important
>> to/by the entire C development community"?  I've yet to meet anyone
>> who would agree with that.  Look outside of your little box sometime
>> and see what most C programmers are doing:  embedded code.
>
> I'm sorry to be so long in responding here;  having to juggle too
> many items.

I thought you had taken offense at to being called a plutocrat :)

> An important phrase in what I said is "that provides no
> capability beyond what is fairly easily available otherwise".
> The math stuff doesn't fall into this category, whereas
> binary constants do.

As did a large part of the other additions in C99.  I would place binary 
constants in the same basket as stdint types and maybe bool.  No they 
don't provide a capability beyond what is fairly easily available 
otherwise but they do, through standardisation, make the programmer's 
job easier.  If anything, as simple typedefs stdint types were much more 
available than binary constants are today.

-- 
Ian Collins

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 07:44 -0700
  Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-26 15:33 -0700
    Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 19:57 +0100
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-28 20:52 +0100
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-29 11:19 +0000
    Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-28 22:26 +0000
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-30 13:56 +0100
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 19:22 +0100
          Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-30 19:45 +0100
    Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 09:02 -0700
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-04 18:34 +0100
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 00:23 -0700
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 15:56 -0700
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-04 20:04 -0700
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 09:13 -0700
          Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 13:40 -0700
            Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-10 22:26 +0200
              Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-10 13:49 -0700
            Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 07:53 -0700
  Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 17:30 +1300
    Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:26 -0700
      Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:02 +1300
        Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 10:06 -0700

csiph-web