Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v2o57g$1t5p4$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 21:25:43 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <v2o57g$1t5p4$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 21:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ccd58fcd19f1e2be456013ebf65e0484"; logging-data="2004772"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OPd76gMxVzUTwMoOt0S/M1n8Xjwg+vO8=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ll1HTiCErQ8MNW0hy0gqkg9IXCg= Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2365 Am 22.05.2024 um 18:55 schrieb David Brown: > In an attempt to bring some topicality to the group, has anyone started > using, or considering, C23 ? There's quite a lot of change in it, > especially compared to the minor changes in C17. > > <https://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n3220.pdf> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C23_(C_standard_revision)> > <https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/23> > > I like that it tidies up a lot of old stuff - it is neater to have > things like "bool", "static_assert", etc., as part of the language > rather than needing a half-dozen includes for such basic stuff. > > I like that it standardises a several useful extensions that have been > in gcc and clang (and possibly other compilers) for many years. > > I'm not sure it will make a big difference to my own programming - when > I want "typeof" or "chk_add()", I already use them in gcc. But for > people restricted to standard C, there's more new to enjoy. And I > prefer to use standard syntax when possible. > > "constexpr" is something I think I will find helpful, in at least some > circumstances. > I ask myself what the point is in further developing a language like this that can actually no longer be saved.