Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:24:43 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <20250402232443.00003a7d@yahoo.com>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com>
	<vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjjd1$23ukt$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjkvb$25mtg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsjlkq$230a5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 22:24:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="10b3085fa7863b6177f97f4e0aa6586e";
	logging-data="2841161"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19h0aenDLTelyp//mU0OEvGOHhr6TBwR70="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f45+I2RSQJ7eZ6bi9bMXuvRE3k0=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:38:03 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 02/04/2025 16:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:59:45 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:  
> >> On 02/04/2025 16:05, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:  
> >>> I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any
> >>> correspondence with anyone from the committee so they get an
> >>> entirely biased sample. Just like its usually only people who had
> >>> a bad experience that fill in "How did we do"  
> >>  
> >>> surveys.  
> >>
> >> And I suspect that you haven't a clue who the C standards
> >> committee talk to - and who those people in turn have asked.  
> > 
> > By imference you do - so who are they?
> >   
> >> 11. nullptr for clarity and safety.  
> > 
> > Never understood that in C++ never mind C. NULL has worked fine for
> > 50 years.  
> 
> And it's been a hack for 50 years. Especially when it is just:
> 
>    #define NULL 0
> 
> You also need to include some header (which one?) in order to use it. 
> I'd hope you wouldn't need to do that for nullptr, but backwards 
> compatibility may require it (because of any forward-thinking 
> individuals who have already defined their own 'nullptr').
> 
> 

C23 is rather bold in that regard, adding non-underscored keywords as
if there was no yesterday. IMHO, for no good reasons.