Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Heathfield Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:27:36 +0000 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <87a59hvgyk.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86ecyronqa.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:27:37 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f460b36cc498e8c1c99eefb8f44e3e6"; logging-data="3478341"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lhHMnrmIzPm+8n2JzPIuie5LpGXlpW5OPh8g++Akj+Q==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:dilTYgVRsnpa7J1nbnjeXur8AoY= In-Reply-To: <86ecyronqa.fsf@linuxsc.com> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2345 On 20/03/2025 13:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield writes: > >> >> I'm not sure a new edition is necessary, but if it is to be >> written it would be better served by someone like Keith or Tim, >> both of whom have (as I have not) kept up with the million-and-one >> changes that appear to have assailed the simple language I once >> enjoyed. > > The C99 standard has a list of 54 what it calls "major changes", > although IMO many or most of those are fairly minor. There are also > other differences relative to C90, but most of them are simply > clarifications or slight changes in wording. Those I largely recall from discussions at the time, but I dare to conclude that your lack of a reference to C11, C17, and C23 means that they had a lesser effect on the language than I'd feared. I see now from casual research that C17 was predominantly a bug fix, but that C11 and C23 were somewhat busier. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within