Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vsmu0s$1lh9l$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 23:19:23 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vsmu0s$1lh9l$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>
 <vsjs5k$2bfc5$2@dont-email.me> <vsjvgu$2fpp1$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250402113624.693@kylheku.com> <86o6xdhorr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 23:19:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3b3535d32fe6df497f72eabc02f13e99";
	logging-data="1754421"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FhvTSOBAN63C1OEVxbaFB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KZSS92nO1PjTRA4CC0dbOizkGN8=
In-Reply-To: <86o6xdhorr.fsf@linuxsc.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110

On 03.04.2025 06:06, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
> 
> [some symbols are defined in more than one header]
> 
>> (In my opinion, things would be better if headers were not allowed
>> to behave as if they include other headers, or provide identifiers
>> also given in other heards.  Not in ISO C, and not in POSIX.
>> Every identifier should be declared in exactly one home header,
>> and no other header should provide that definition.  [...])
> 
> Not always practical.  A good example is the type size_t.  If a
> function takes an argument of type size_t, then the symbol size_t
> should be defined, no matter which header the function is being
> declared in.  Similarly for NULL for any function that has defined
> behavior on some cases of arguments that include NULL.  No doubt
> there are other compelling examples.

I think that all that's said above (by Kaz and you) is basically
correct.

Obviously [to me] it is that 'size_t' and 'NULL' are so fundamental
entities (a standard type and a standard pointer constant literal)
that such items should have been inherent part of the "C" language,
and not #include'd. (But we're speaking about "C" so it's probably
pointless to discuss that from a more fundamental perspective...)

The practical "C" approach was always to just include what you need
(and don't make ones mind about "C" language design [or mis-design]).

Janis