Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 18:57:40 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <20241201185740.00004c30@yahoo.com>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
	<vi6sb1$148h7$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vi6uaj$3ve13$2@dont-email.me>
	<87plmfu2ub.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vi9jk4$gse4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vi9kng$gn4c$1@dont-email.me>
	<87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me>
	<877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me>
	<vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me>
	<20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com>
	<vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me>
	<20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com>
	<vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
	<vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me>
	<87mshhsrr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vidd2a$18k9j$1@dont-email.me>
	<8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vihhkj$2er60$1@dont-email.me>
	<vihjaj$2f79m$2@dont-email.me>
	<vihs4s$2hgg1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 17:56:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="af322d51ba249ca3f8010405aab9c2b4";
	logging-data="2470937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U2cafXWVhsPZGF7rk7sZ3LJe7sYZ8CkY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oGeUmTiTKAwFFTTR0WLWv93U4+Y=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2706

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 15:34:04 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> I can see some advantages in a language being happy with any order of 
> function definition, without requiring forward declarations to use a 
> function before it is defined.  But C is not like that, and I cannot 
> honestly say it bothers me one way or the other.  And apparently, it 
> does not particularly bother many people - there is, I think, no
> serious impediment or backwards compatibility issue that would
> prevent C being changed in this way.  Yet no one has felt the need
> for it - at least not strongly enough to fight for it going in the
> standard or being a common compiler extension.
> 
> 
> 

I think, arguing in favor of such change would be easier on top of
the changes made in C23.
Before C23 there were, as you put it "no serious impediment or
backwards compatibility issue". After C23 we could more categorical
claim that there are no new issues.