Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?

On 12/07/2024 17:46, James Kuyper wrote:

On 7/12/24 11:46, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]

KT has chosen not to answer, and now you are evading it too. I'm
asking why this:
>
      void F(int* B) {}
>
is 'not C' according to KT.

>
I never said that's "not C".  It is in fact a perfectly valid function
definition.  And it's not the question you originally asked.

 In your message dated 2024-07-11 13:29 -0700, you wrote:

The language could insist that you write:

>
    void F(int* B) {}
>
But it doesn't.  Why should we waste time in comp.lang.c explaining how
C *could* have been defined?  It's hard enough to explain how it
actually is defined, especially with your contributions.
>

This way, it is far clearer that a pointer is being passed, and 'pass
by value' now makes more sense. The way B will be used is now
consistent with the same declaration anywhere else.

>
But that's not C.

 So you did say that something is not C, Bart has merely misidentified
what it is. "void F(int*B)" is C, and you never denied that it was.
Insisting that you write "void F(int*B)" - in other words, disallowing
"void F(int B[20])" - is not C, and that's you did say.
 

If you use:
   -Werror=sizeof-array-argument
with gcc, then it makes using sizeof() on such a parameter an error.
Presumably somebody though that was worth checking for. Maybe somebody will think that using array-parameters at all is worth checking for too.