Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #86076
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: To C or not to C++ |
| Date | 2022-08-25 20:51 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <te8gbk$3nb4b$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <87r115sn88.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <878rndy1wg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87wnaxqsfy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <te77t8$3jk85$1@dont-email.me> <87ilmgw82w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
On 25/08/2022 19:23, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 24/08/2022 22:48, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > [...] >>>> C23 will make bool, false, and true keywords. >>>> >>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3047.pdf >>> I didn't know that, but I am not surprised because of the new course >>> C >>> is taking. I hope it does not run aground... >>> >> >> Some of the C23 changes are obvious and practical, such as "volatile >> semantics for lvalues" (embedded developers have been relying on this >> for decades, so it's nice to see it standardised), and the >> standardisation of "#warning" (again, something that people have used >> for decades). >> >> But there has definitely been a change in the principles. C23 makes >> "bool" the type and keyword, with "_Bool" as the "alternative >> spelling". Similarly we now have "static_assert", "alignas", etc. >> "void foo();" now means "void foo(void);". There are many things like >> this that arguably make C a slightly better and neater language, and >> will not harm anyone who has been writing decent C99 code over the >> past couple of decades. But C has a history older than that - and >> backwards compatibility is a prime reason the language is still alive >> and kicking. >> >> I suppose that we can rely on gcc to follow the fine tradition of >> supporting old, outdated and dangerous constructs when invoked without >> specific standards or warning flags - I expect it to still work with >> code that has "typedef int bool;" for a long time to come. > > Remember that C99 removed implicit int, which in principle broke a lot > of existing code. Most compilers continued to accept implicit it in > some mode, perhaps with a non-fatal warning. > Yes, that is an example of gcc supporting old and dangerous constructs even when nominally using standards that disallow it. > Code that uses bool, false, and true as identifiers is going to be a > little trickier to handle in lexical analysis and parsing. > I expect the gcc folks will figure out a way to handle it - at least in cases where the "homemade" bool type and values are directly compatible with the "real" type and values. (For the type, that would really just mean manually doing "typedef _Bool bool;" or "#define bool _Bool", since alternatives like enumerations, int, or char do not have the same semantics.)
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
To C or not to C++ NOSPAM.Alan.Beck@darkrealms.ca (Alan Beck) - 2022-08-08 09:43 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-08 20:02 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-09 05:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-09 11:07 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:25 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 21:39 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:45 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-10 19:50 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 13:13 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:29 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:41 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:39 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-10 10:11 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 08:23 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-12 12:12 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:41 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:09 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 10:28 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:37 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 15:55 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:43 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-12 18:07 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 15:14 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:11 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 17:56 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 11:32 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 11:33 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 04:37 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 13:31 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:09 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:31 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:38 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 15:57 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-24 10:41 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-24 21:48 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 07:34 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 11:29 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 04:14 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 12:36 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 05:16 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 17:16 +0100
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:35 +0200
[OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-25 21:32 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie (Was: To C or not to C++) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 23:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 00:33 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:39 +0200
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-26 10:57 +0100
Re: [OT] Bad CS course, no cookie David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 12:49 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 19:56 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 10:47 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 02:48 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 13:02 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 04:57 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-26 14:55 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 06:20 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-27 18:44 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-28 11:30 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:06 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:32 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 11:36 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:47 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-26 03:11 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 09:21 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-25 12:58 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 10:23 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-25 20:51 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-24 13:56 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-24 17:18 +0300
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-24 14:25 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 16:46 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-15 06:16 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-15 19:01 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-08-15 22:22 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-16 08:48 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:19 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-16 12:56 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:47 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-17 14:49 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-18 14:49 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-19 03:10 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-08-18 22:12 -0400
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-18 20:08 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-19 10:39 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-17 06:45 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-17 18:48 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:16 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:03 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-10 10:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-11 04:25 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-11 01:03 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 08:11 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-11 13:53 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 04:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 21:13 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:29 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 13:12 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-14 00:44 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 02:54 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 12:12 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-08-12 16:22 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 17:49 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-08-13 03:16 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-13 09:08 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-08-15 14:44 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2022-08-10 12:06 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 07:04 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-08-09 12:31 +0200
Re: To C or not to C++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-09 15:59 +0000
Re: To C or not to C++ Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2022-08-19 04:09 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-13 12:17 -0700
Re: To C or not to C++ "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 23:15 -0700
csiph-web