Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? |
| Date | 2016-09-16 20:51 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nrheui$19f$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <e3ul6kF1l4bU2@mid.individual.net> <nrdu54$2ii$1@dont-email.me> <kfnsht1gg2n.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <nrg9tf$vqr$1@dont-email.me> <kfn37kzhojo.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
On 16/09/16 17:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 15/09/16 20:42, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> And it is usually not hard to write code that is valid C, and valid C++, >>>> and not /too/ strange for either language. [...] >>> >>> I disagree. This can be true for small examples or certain >>> limited contexts, but it is not true for any significant >>> body of code. >> >> Code like this will often look strange for C++ code, but that is >> primarily because you are not using common features of C++ code >> (classes, namespaces, templates, etc.), rather than because you are >> using the common C/C++ subset in a strange way. But IME it will seldom >> look very strange when viewed as C code. >> >> However, you don't normally have to write a lot of code that can be >> compiled as C and C++ - usually it is restricted to headers. > > My comment was meant in the context of writing .c files, not only > function headers. If all one is writing is function prototypes > then it is pretty easy to write code in the intersection of C and > C++. My comment though was meant more generally, since what the > OP is asking about encompasses source code at the .c level, not > only headers. > >> I have had occasion to write code for customers which they wanted to be >> both C and C++ compatible - it was not a difficult requirement, and it >> did not lead to unusual or idiosyncratic code. > > It is possible to write C code that is also C++ code in much the > same way that it is possible to write English prose that doesn't > have any "j"'s in it. It may even look perfectly ordinary - > consider as an example my last paragraph. However it is extra > effort to do so: while writing this paragraph I had to go back > and change two occurrences of "just" to "only" so there wouldn't > be any "j"'s. And the result of that change is that it reads > (IMO) a little worse than the original. There is an analogous > effect with code in the C/C++ intersection, except there I think > it's worse than simply leaving out "j"'s in English. > >> To be fair, when I have written such code, it has been in small (or >> "resource constrained") embedded systems. For example, casting void* >> pointers before assignment was not an issue - they are very rare in such >> code. malloc() and friends are typically banned anyway. > > I imagine there were other consequences as well, but I won't > ask about those since it's tangential to the area I mean > to address. > >>> (I note that the original message went on to some particular >>> details, and those comments refine the general statement >>> above. I'm not offering any comments on the details, and >>> may agree (or not) on some of those. But as a general >>> blanket statement IMO the statement above is just wrong.) >> >> Can you give an example (obviously a short one) of code written in >> "C/C++" that you think would be particularly strange or unusual when >> viewed as C code? > > I wrote a short example (which I will describe but not post) of a > way to do runtime polymorphism for this very thread. After I had > written it I realized it wasn't suitable for the OP's needs (or > at least what were thought to be needs) because my C code would > not compile as C++. The .h file, that was no problem. The .c > file, blammo! Roughly 30% of the lines had incompatibilities. > These fell into three categories: void *, compound literals, and > designated initializers. (It's possible there were other > problems but those are the ones I remember.) Now of course it > is possible to work around all of these, but it's a big pain in > the you-know-where. For me it is simply above threshold, like > trying to write in C90 again - it isn't that I can't do it, but > it's not natural, and certainly isn't merely a minor adjustment. > I think it is a shame that compound literals and designated initializers are not valid in C++. However, I think it must be highly unusual to have such a large proportion of your C code using those features - it is perhaps just the luck of this particular programming task. For my own part, I used these features occasionally - but not nearly so much that it would be a noticeable issue. (Also, I might cheat a little in this case - the C++ compilers I use would accept compound literals as an extension.) I know that the way you and I write our C code is noticeably different - there are a number of features that we use in different proportions. Perhaps I can simply say that when /I/ write C code, there is little difference if it is written to be C++ compatible, but that this may not apply to everyone's C code, and it may not apply to equally to all types of C code or all programming tasks. As another point, however, for people programming C on Windows it is quite popular to use MSVC in C++ mode to compiler their C. Such developers seem to manage fine, and don't find the compatibility issues limiting. > By the way, I tried to write the text new in this posting > without any "j"'s, but one crept in there right at the end > in "adjustment" (and after I had already changed a "just" to > "merely"... oh well). :) >
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? thiago.adams@gmail.com - 2016-09-12 13:24 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-12 21:56 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-12 15:59 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 16:05 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:17 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:20 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:59 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-09-14 17:31 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:49 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 11:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2016-09-14 14:13 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:26 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-12 17:11 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 15:55 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:08 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:56 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 07:58 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 19:39 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 13:52 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-15 00:53 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:04 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:52 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 19:26 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 19:04 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:23 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:06 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:12 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:37 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:47 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 22:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:56 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 07:34 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:31 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 12:32 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-15 18:25 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:51 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 17:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 19:23 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:35 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 10:40 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:01 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 23:51 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 15:14 -0400
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-15 16:08 +1200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:46 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:37 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:53 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 21:45 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-16 06:32 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:59 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 04:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 12:58 +0100
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 12:06 +0000
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 05:13 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:02 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 11:42 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:19 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 08:06 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:51 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 11:56 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 22:38 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 11:42 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 14:02 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 11:18 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:46 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 13:10 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 07:21 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:37 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 14:43 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 15:36 -0700
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:45 +0200
Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-17 17:14 -0700
csiph-web