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: References: <20250413072027.219@kylheku.com> <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <86h62078i8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250504180833.00000906@yahoo.com> <86plggzilx.fsf@linuxsc.com> 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 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.