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