Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: New directions in C: Default arguments |
| Date | 2015-03-16 14:52 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <me7c83$64p$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <_4ENw.20099$7U.13751@fx31.iad> <me76cp$b8d$1@dont-email.me> <TiFNw.32006$IH4.11330@fx08.iad> <me78n1$lom$1@dont-email.me> <igGNw.117481$hv4.43509@fx04.iad> |
On 3/16/2015 2:35 PM, Greg Martin wrote:
> On 2015-03-16, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2015 1:30 PM, Greg Martin wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-16, Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2015 17:07, Greg Martin wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-03-16, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> (3) Each function, especially if applying this retroactively to an
>>>> existing application, now has to be rewritten to use a single struct
>>>> argument.
>>> As would be the case with new syntax. In addition all compilers would
>>> have to support it for it to be of any value.
>> No. The new syntax would not be creating any struct argument. I'll
>> further expand on the example I supplied you earlier.
> I didn't say it would.
Then what were you saying? The statement you responded to was about
rewriting functions to use a single struct argument. Your response
indicated to me that you thought the syntax below would be doing the same.
>> void func1(int w, int x, int .y, int .z);
>> void func2(int w, int x, int .y, int .z = 4);
>>
>> void parent()
>> {
>> /* Generated code equivalent to
>> func1(0, 1, 3, 4); */
>> func1(0, 1, .z = 4, .y = 3);
>> /* Generated code equivalent to
>> func1(0, 1, 3, 0); */
>> func1(0, 1, .y = 3);
>> /* Generated code equivalent to
>> func1(0, 1, 3, 4); */
>> func2(0, 1, .y = 3);
>> }
>> No need for any new structures or calling conventions.
> Again,I didn't suggest a new structure was required.You introduced a new
> syntax and I said I saw little value in making that change vs. using
> what is currently available.
Then I don't understand what you meant by, "As would be the case with
new syntax. In addition all compilers would have to support it for it to
be of any value." The "As would be the case" coming in response to
pointing out the need for a struct in your proposal indicates, to me,
that you were talking about the need to add a struct. This is further
reinforced by "all compilers would have to support it." as, if there was
a struct involved, the compilers would have to agree about how that
struct is defined. So, what would be the case with the new syntax and
why would all compilers need to support it to be useful?
Martin Shobe
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
New directions in C: Default arguments jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-14 23:11 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-14 18:17 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-15 11:25 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 07:18 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-15 14:32 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 08:30 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 09:05 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 10:15 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 15:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-15 22:40 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 16:04 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 08:35 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 16:45 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 11:36 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-03-17 02:09 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-17 12:44 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-03-17 11:07 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 11:35 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 12:40 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 18:12 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 18:30 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 13:52 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 19:35 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 14:52 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 20:27 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 19:44 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 19:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 20:23 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 20:53 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 14:33 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 11:44 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 13:59 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-15 01:33 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 00:59 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-15 23:45 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-15 16:21 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 11:41 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 11:13 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 13:19 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 12:38 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 13:51 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 13:21 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 15:12 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 14:24 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 16:09 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-16 18:11 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 13:23 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 12:28 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 13:33 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 08:20 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 15:16 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 11:38 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 10:51 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-16 13:47 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-16 13:20 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 10:43 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 13:18 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-15 08:25 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-15 18:16 +0100
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-03-16 00:38 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 01:03 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-16 09:04 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-03-17 00:22 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 01:08 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-19 01:37 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-20 00:45 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-17 22:17 -0500
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-03-18 15:55 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 01:07 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-16 08:18 -0700
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-03-16 17:35 +0000
Definitions vs. Prototypes (Was: New directions in C: Default arguments) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-03-16 17:55 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-16 20:21 +0000
Re: New directions in C: Default arguments jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 22:44 +0100
csiph-web