Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 16:53:32 -0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vsum3s$1qctl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vsph6b$ce6m$5@dont-email.me> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250406162607.0000657a@yahoo.com> <vsu1gr$15ajj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 21:53:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b738a32e083fe5f29861f74ca2e2ea43";
	logging-data="1913781"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rBoUpcK1Q/hixbzU/stKcK5eAu45qDB4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EdNyKf5LPJBY+ju7IejOkPDqn0Y=
In-Reply-To: <vsu1gr$15ajj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3150

Em 4/6/2025 11:02 AM, David Brown escreveu:
> On 06/04/2025 15:26, Michael S wrote:
> 
>> More interesting question than the one above is: why post of Alexis
>> from 3 months ago named "Opinion on defer" is on topic in c.l.c ?
>> How exactly can we draw a line between two cases?
>>
> 
> One possible distinction is if the post starts off making it clear that 
> the discussion is about a potential extension or enhancement to C. 
> Alexis discussed a blog article from a C standards committee member 
> about a possible future C standard feature - that's entirely topical.
> 
> If Thiago had started off by saying he is prototyping this feature as an 
> extension in his experimental C compiler, with a view to seeing how it 
> helps real C code and then proposing it for an enhancement in future C 
> standards, it could reasonably be considered topical (more so than many 
> threads we have had).  Without context, however, it can reasonably be 
> seen as unconnected to C and therefore entirely non-topical.
> 
> Since there is no explicit C context, but an implication that this might 
> be an extension in his C compiler, it's a more of a grey area.  A number 
> of regulars here have responded (with posts other than "this is off- 
> topic"), so that suggests there is at least some interest in the group.
> 
> 

I have asked the same question here before. It can be implemented using 
macros.

#define try
#define catch if (0) catch_label:
#define throw do { throw_break_point(); goto catch_label;}while (0)

The reason I asked again is that I think people immediately associate 
try-catch with C++ exceptions, but this time, I was trying to avoid that 
association from the start and see whether the feedback on the feature 
would still be the same.
I've been using these macros and am very happy with the results to the 
point that I think they should be part of the standard.