Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:47:30 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <87bjzdp4il.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <veb5fi$3ll7j$1@dont-email.me>
	<877ca5q84u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vf0ijd$3u54q$1@dont-email.me> <vf0l98$3un4n$1@dont-email.me>
	<vf0ps2$3vf16$1@dont-email.me> <vf2mno$c52l$1@dont-email.me>
	<87iktmpr2f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vf4t01$qo5f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d78850d2999934a43c5fa022cf8ac309";
	logging-data="1157918"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18y9Mgtw1o+kQuEnrzea5w5"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HEBWXRXHbY22qWCdjpXFx2A8rf0=
	sha1:R6FydY2LUb5gnXhhuXAMmZ+4m3U=
Bytes: 1984

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> MS is in a somewhat different position than other C compiler
> vendors. They decided - for various reasons - not to support C99 other
> than parts that had direct correspondence with C++ features.  Without
> having followed any of the proceedings, I suspect the reason VLAs are
> optional in C23 is because MS wants to avoid adding more than they
> have to before being able to jump to (approximate) C23 conformance.
> "constexpr" will be relatively easy for them, as they have it in C++
> already.

Yes, Microsoft pretty much skipped over C99, but if I recall correctly
their current C compiler has reasonably good support for C11.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */