Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:49:48 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <vsm05b$k0b7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsj2l9$1j0as$1@dont-email.me> <vsjef3$1u4nk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjg6t$20pdb$1@dont-email.me> <vsjjd1$23ukt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjkvb$25mtg$1@dont-email.me> <vsjlkq$230a5$2@dont-email.me>
 <20250402232443.00003a7d@yahoo.com> <vslilm$8mfb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 14:49:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5507e5a04d95688517b6600f7dbd180a";
	logging-data="655719"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yW20qhnXT4fbRr/IBPg3N"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UrZQbOHMACF+u628p7pH9EnELqU=
In-Reply-To: <vslilm$8mfb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3805

On 03/04/2025 09:59, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/04/2025 22:24, Michael S wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:38:03 +0100
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2025 16:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:59:45 +0200
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>>>> On 02/04/2025 16:05, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>>> I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any
>>>>>> correspondence with anyone from the committee so they get an
>>>>>> entirely biased sample. Just like its usually only people who had
>>>>>> a bad experience that fill in "How did we do"
>>>>>> surveys.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I suspect that you haven't a clue who the C standards
>>>>> committee talk to - and who those people in turn have asked.
>>>>
>>>> By imference you do - so who are they?
>>>>> 11. nullptr for clarity and safety.
>>>>
>>>> Never understood that in C++ never mind C. NULL has worked fine for
>>>> 50 years.
>>>
>>> And it's been a hack for 50 years. Especially when it is just:
>>>
>>>     #define NULL 0
>>>
>>> You also need to include some header (which one?) in order to use it.
>>> I'd hope you wouldn't need to do that for nullptr, but backwards
>>> compatibility may require it (because of any forward-thinking
>>> individuals who have already defined their own 'nullptr').
>>>
>>>
>>
>> C23 is rather bold in that regard, adding non-underscored keywords as
>> if there was no yesterday. IMHO, for no good reasons.
>>
> 
> It is bold, perhaps, but there are certainly good reasons.

Perhaps go bolder and drop the need to explicitly include those 30 or so 
standard headers. It's ridiculous having to micro-manage the availablity 
of fundamental language features ('uint8_t' for example!) in every module.

When I suggested this is the past, people were up in arms about the 
overheads of having to compile all those headers (in 2017, they were 
3-5KB lines in all for gcc on Windows/Linux).

Yet the same people think nothing of using libraries like SDL2 (50K 
lines of headers) or GTK2 (350K lines).

> This does mean that some pre-C23 code will be incompatible with C23.

This was also my view in the past, to draw a line under 'old' C and to 
start using 'new' C.

I understand C23 mode will be enabled by a compiler option (-std=c23); 
the same method could have been used to enable all std headers, and for 
that to be the default.

Hello World then becomes this one-liner:

   int main() {puts("Hello, World!");}