Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 02:27:28 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <87zffi2n7j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me>
	<vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me>
	<20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vvnsvt$3k1mu$1@dont-email.me> <86ldr4yx0x.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vvpmm2$3dhl$1@dont-email.me> <vvpsji$4jht$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvr5mg$l85c$1@dont-email.me>
	<87wmam4xa5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <868qn2zl1m.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vvrs5j$t9go$1@dont-email.me> <86o6vyxoit.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 11:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec3410180c1ee7cec196ae011e16bd7a";
	logging-data="1079177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vlzTwjpI59VshMhmXL5Bl"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z/C0S0pNiORvOky7uuFQIgRTWwo=
	sha1:ekZ/yBZtHZ2cpcJdN4bHAYmpu1c=
Bytes: 2434

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
> It isn't just that checking the condition cannot be done in general.
> To be reliable the parameter length information would need to be
> part of the function's type.  That has implications for type
> compatibility and also for the types of pointers-to-function.  And
> it would mean that removing a 'static' array length specification on
> a function definition would necessitate also changing the functions
> declarations, plus any affected pointers-to-function.  Not worth it,
> even if in theory it were doable.
[...]

In my opinion, keeping a function's definition and declarations
consistent is absolutely worth it, even if the language might not
require it.

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