Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_technology_discussion_=e2=86=92_does_the_world_need_a?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_=22new=22_C_=3f?=
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:51:55 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <v6r5cs$30sjm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <v6gl83$s72a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h8ao$ur1v$1@dont-email.me> <v6jhk3$1drd6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jiud$1dsjb$1@dont-email.me> <877cdur1z9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6joi4$1epoj$1@dont-email.me> <871q42qy33.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6k6i0$1h4d3$1@dont-email.me> <87ed82p28y.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6m03l$1tf05$1@dont-email.me> <87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me> <86ikxd8czu.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v6mggd$20g3f$1@dont-email.me> <20240710213910.00000afd@yahoo.com>
 <v6mm02$21cpb$1@dont-email.me> <865xtc87yo.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v6ol14$2fdrj$1@dont-email.me> <87msmnu5e3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <v6pdcf$2jijk$1@dont-email.me> <87frsfu0yp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <v6pfo3$2jijk$2@dont-email.me> <v6qgbt$2t6p7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6r2im$30a9n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:51:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8edcfb47062680d1d4b0e08c9385640";
	logging-data="3175030"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lcCfUHpwJWddQzA7B/+zE"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oGGqBi548o6Lu/Va70CtOHjqhnc=
In-Reply-To: <v6r2im$30a9n$1@dont-email.me>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Bytes: 2637

On 12.07.2024 13:03, bart wrote:
> 
> KT has chosen not to answer, and now you are evading it too. I'm asking
> why this:
> 
>      void F(int* B) {}
> 
> is 'not C' according to KT.
> 
> To be clear, I was proposing that:
> 
>  void F(int B[20])
> 
> is an error, and requiring people to write:
> 
>  void F(int* B) {}
> 
> instead.

Given that the first form is maybe confusing some folks (especially
you at least) I think that would have been not a bad idea. (But
we'd have to ponder more thoroughly about that [theoretical] idea
to recognize any undesired implications.)

But "C" is what it is. Changing that now would certainly break code.
And complaining about it is useless since you cannot change history.

Janis

> [...]