Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 08:20:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <vvpml8$3de9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtgfuf$31ug1$1@dont-email.me> <20250413072027.219@kylheku.com> <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me> <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me> <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me> <vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me> <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vvnsvt$3k1mu$1@dont-email.me>
 <EjMTP.32101$JRnc.22312@fx37.iad>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 10:20:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8eb5e38b0d3f70ad1581c5ed912dfabc";
	logging-data="112073"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+G/8bWNTjsU73CiDbOLUos"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QuVxL/IZnq+AaDZPu9UIwUwZdcA=

On Sat, 10 May 2025 17:48:20 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>On Sat, 10 May 2025 06:43:38 -0700
>>Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> gabbled:
>>>never necessary).  Also it isn't easy to think of a good substitute
>>>word that might be given for this use of 'static', so maybe the
>>
>>Isn't it?
>>
>>Where "static" means local to a module the words "local","module","limit"
>>spring to mind which are far closer to the intended meaning. Reusing "static"
>>seems somewhat perverse IMO.
>
>'local', 'module', 'limit' are common words used as identifiers in five
>decades of C code.  Using them as keywords in a newer version of C would
>not be desirable.   Whereas the new flavor of 'static' won't break any
>existing code, and provides a concrete benefit.

Overloading the same keyword to mean different things is never desirable IMO
otherwise taken to its logical conclusion you might as well just have 1 keyword
that does everything. 

Compiler switches are a thing - if there's a name clash with your old code 
don't compile it with the new version of the language. I'm sure plenty of old
C code used variable names such as "new" or "class" so it can't be compiled
by a C++ compiler.