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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #5864

Re: a doubt about c

Show all headers | View raw

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 2011-06-11, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> On 2011-06-11, Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Enumeration defines constants used in c++, but not seen any in c, why?
>>>
>>> It's mainly historical. Enums were originally not a part of the C
>>> language when K&R designed it; they were first added in C89. Many
>>> sources still use #defines over enums, and both forms are acceptable
>>> as in C there is functionally very little difference between them.
>>
>> Enums are older than that.  If I recall correctly, they were added
>> shortly after K&R1, which was published in 1978.
>
> I was going by Wikipedia, which claims it was first introduced by ANSI.
> But it is quite possible that you are right. I was only five back then
> so I don't remember 1978 too well. ;-)

I was %*&*^ at the time.  (Hope this article isn't garbled by line
noise.)

According to http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html (yes, the dmr
is Dennis Ritchie):

    During 1973-1980, the language grew a bit: the type structure
    gained unsigned, long, union, and enumeration types, and
    structures became nearly first-class objects (lacking only a
    notation for literals).

unsigned, long, and union all appear in K&R1 (1978), but enums and
struct parameters did not.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Thread

a doubt about c Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 06:11 -0700
  Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-11 09:36 -0400
  Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 14:37 +0000
    Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 11:55 -0700
      Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 20:41 +0000
        Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 08:58 +1200
          Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:09 -0500
          Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-11 18:25 -0400
            Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:43 +1200
            Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 05:38 -0700
              Re: a doubt about c Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:12 -0400
                Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 10:59 -0400
                Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:07 +0100
                Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:33 -0700
                Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 09:53 -0400
                Re: a doubt about c Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:46 +0100
          Re: a doubt about c DSF <notavalid@address.here> - 2011-06-11 18:53 -0500
            Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 16:18 -0700
              Re: a doubt about c Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-11 21:13 -0500
                Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 14:56 +1200
                Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 20:24 -0700
                Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 08:10 -0400
            Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:49 +1200
        Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:36 -0700
      Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-12 00:23 +0100
        Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000
          Re: a doubt about c Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-15 15:44 -0700
            Re: a doubt about c Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-15 19:57 -0700
              Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:39 +0100
                Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-17 15:39 +0100
                Re: a doubt about c Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 14:49 +0000
                Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
                Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 12:00 -0500
                Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 11:08 -0500
                Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 13:00 -0500
                Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:01 -0500
                Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
                Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-17 22:16 +0000
                Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-18 02:24 +0100
      Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:09 -0600
      [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:05 -0400
        Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-12 11:22 -0700
          Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-12 11:44 -0700
        Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Ralph Spitzner <rasp@spitzner.org> - 2011-06-13 11:31 +0200
          Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 10:03 -0400
            Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-17 07:52 +0100
            Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-19 00:41 -0700
              Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-19 07:04 -0400
                Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Bill Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com> - 2011-06-23 11:03 -0700
  Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 11:23 -0500
    Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 13:56 -0400
      Re: a doubt about c "dr.oktopus" <blindwilly@freeonline.zzn.com> - 2011-06-11 12:53 -0700
        Re: a doubt about c Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2011-06-11 16:01 -0400
        Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 13:07 -0700
        Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 14:13 -0600
          Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-11 23:31 +0100
            Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 20:07 -0400
            Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:05 -0600
      Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 16:42 -0500
        Re: a doubt about c "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-11 14:23 -0700
          Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:27 -0500
            Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:42 -0700
  Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000

csiph-web