Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<20250409124900.00000fa1@yahoo.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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, 9 Apr 2025 12:49:00 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <20250409124900.00000fa1@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> <vsjgjn$1v1n4$1@dont-email.me> <vsjk4k$24q5m$1@dont-email.me> <vsjlcp$230a5$1@dont-email.me> <vsjmdl$277bk$1@dont-email.me> <VsdHP.1828827$TBhc.1078002@fx16.iad> <vskjlo$34st8$1@dont-email.me> <20250402220614.431@kylheku.com> <85mscxlqnb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vsl9sn$3vdjj$2@dont-email.me> <20250403121946.134@kylheku.com> <vsms75$1i8ud$1@dont-email.me> <vsnhq6$291i3$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 11:48:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="644d447233835e2adaf6a2a915809f6d"; logging-data="197353"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qi8zOk9lweBJn3be+hg3poli+mSFtp+o=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ujk++5Z+6a3GHUyxxsVjsweDdEs= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Bytes: 2716 On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 02:57:10 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:48:40 +0100, bart wrote: > > > Commas are overwhelmingly used to separate list elements in > > programming languages. > > Not just separate, but terminate. I disagree. I am in favor of optional trailing commas rather than mandatory ones. > All the reasonable languages allow > trailing commas. Are your sure that C Standard does not allow trailing commas? That is, they are obviously legal in initializer lists. All compilers that I tried reject trailing comma in function calls. For example void bar(int); void foo(void) { bar(1,); } MSVC: comma.c(3): error C2059: syntax error: ')' clang: comma.c:3:9: error: expected expression 3 | bar(1,); | ^ gcc: comma.c: In function 'foo': comma.c:3:9: error: expected expression before ')' token 3 | bar(1,); | ^ comma.c:3:3: error: too many arguments to function 'bar' 3 | bar(1,); | ^~~ comma.c:1:6: note: declared here 1 | void bar(int); | ^~~ But is it (rejection) really required by the Standard? I don't know.