Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:59:50 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <86v7recz55.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vsph6b$ce6m$5@dont-email.me> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406161323.00005809@yahoo.com> <86ecy5fjin.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com> <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 19:59:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3be70bfd357a158f55184c1ca57022b7";
	logging-data="2859686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/S2XiHjdAT7WI5hdMQ00VW6L08BJs1fG0="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lrmx09jwAgQ/Fk/Q1j0ZvpbjTXY=
	sha1:HBUuRT7Z4+iCak1+BvIyzFgTkLs=
Bytes: 4597

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 05:45:19 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 07:32:16 -0700
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:47:47 -0700
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, even if there had been a posting that concerns
>>>>>> only a gcc extension and nothing else, and is one I didn't
>>>>>> respond to, that doesn't excuse your action.  It isn't like
>>>>>> this is the first time you have posted something here that
>>>>>> is not about C but only about your fantasy language, and
>>>>>> also not the first time the unsuitability of such postings
>>>>>> has been pointed out.  You're a repeat offender.  So stop
>>>>>> pretending you are being picked on for no reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you recommend a more appropriate place for Thiago and others
>>>>> where they can discuss C-like fantasy languages?
>>>>
>>>> The newsgroup comp.lang.misc seems like a natural candidate.
>>>> I don't know if comp.lang.misc has an official charter, but at
>>>> least to me new features of any widely used programming language
>>>> would appear to fall under the umbrella of comp.lang.misc.
>>>
>>> My question was not completely abstract.
>>> I did consider starting a discussion about possibility of inclusion
>>> of stackless co-routines into one of the future editions of C.
>>> Naturally, my ideas at this state are extremely in-concrete, much
>>> more so then the post of Thiago Adams that started this thread.
>>> So, if I ever come to it, which by itself is not very likely, do you
>>> think that comp.lang.misc would be better place than comp.lang.c ?
>>
>> Before giving an answer I would like to ask some questions.
>>
>> * How much does the (still fuzzy) idea depend on running in a C
>>   environment?  Is it very specific to C, or might it be applicable
>>   to other procedural/imperative languages (for example, Pascal)?
>>
>> * How much does the current C language impact what you expect to
>>   propose?  Which aspects of C need to be taken into consideration
>>   in forming the proposal, and how strongly do those considerations
>>   affect the specifics of what would be proposed?

[...]

My apologies;  I gave the wrong impression.  I didn't mean I wanted
to see the answers myself.  What I did mean is that the questions
are good for you (or someone else) to ask of themselves to decide
whether comp.lang.c or comp.lang.misc (or possibly some other group)
is a better place for a posting.

Given that the details seem to be still a bit fuzzy, I tend to think
comp.lang.misc is a better place to start.  But after thinking about
the questions you might decide otherwise.

>> * Assuming you get to a point where you are happy with the details
>>   of a proposed extension, how likely is it that you would write a
>>   proposal for the C standard committee, and make the effort needed
>>   to shepherd it through the process of being accepted for a future
>>   C standard?
>
> Not likely.  I would have to somehow convince somebody else to do it.

I see.  Well, good luck with that.  :)