Article <874j7ep7ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <874j7ep7ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<874j7ep7ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 10:11:20 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <874j7ep7ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <afdfe7c37c6ad739fd82c7ec0587b82e0963fce2@i2pn2.org>
	<va3n09$3nnl8$1@dont-email.me> <87cym2p9ti.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:11:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fbbdc6bc93fc8e09c145618243cc2ab3";
	logging-data="3991012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QJ4rSPQJGMJR9x3B84z96b+Pti3eG1Vk="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eFtpt971G3VpEgToGXvPdAKywnU=
	sha1:Y/b8D9nLunC8MBph3ClH8qsp384=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6b4926a3fd5a7d2981d6.20240821101120BST.874j7ep7ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 2123

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 18:48:17 +0200, fir wrote:
>>
>>> got some thought today thet simply probably allowing to define "int a"
>>> everywhere could be just simply a good c (or other language) design
>>> decision
>>
>> Somehow along the line from BCPL to B to C, one useful feature was lost: 
>> the ability to have a value-returning statement block inside an 
>> expression.
>
> It was lost in the BCPL to B transition.

Interestingly, it's an old idea the existed in both of C's main
progenitors, and yet is still got lost.

BCPL was influenced by CPL, so BCPL's valof/resultis expression is
similar to CPL's result of {... result := ...} form.  But Ritchie also
cites Algol 68 as an influence on C, and in Algol 68 /all/ blocks have a
value (but the type is sometimes void).

Thompson must have thought it not worth preserving in B, and no one
thought to put it back into C when thinking about Algol 68.

-- 
Ben.