Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?

On 23/05/2024 16:19, Michael S wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2024 18:55:36 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
 

In an attempt to bring some topicality to the group, has anyone
started using, or considering, C23 ?  There's quite a lot of change
in it, especially compared to the minor changes in C17.
>

 Why C Standard Committee, while being recently quite liberal in field
of introducing new keywords (too liberal for my liking, many new things
do not really deserve keywords not prefixed by __) is so conservative
in introduction of program control constructs? I don't remember any
new program control introduced under Committee regime.
And I want at least one.
 

What program control construct would you like?

 Another area that was mostly unchanged since 1st edition of K&R is
storage classes. Even such obvious thing as removal of 'auto' class
took too long. If I am not mistaken, totally obsolete 'register' class
is still allowed.

"register" is still in C23.  (Some compilers pay attention to it.  gcc with optimisation disabled puts local variables on the stack, except for those marked "register" that get put in registers.)  It got dropped from C++ when "auto" was re-purposed in C++11, but with the keyword "register" kept for future use.  I would not have objected to the same thing happening in C23.

And I don't remember any additions.

_Thread_local was added in C11, with the alias thread_local in C23.
What would you like to see here?

Personally I can think about at least two useful backward-compatible
additions in that area.