Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 02/04/2025 17:38, bart wrote:

On 02/04/2025 16:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:59:45 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 02/04/2025 16:05, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any correspondence with
anyone from the committee so they get an entirely biased sample. Just like
its usually only people who had a bad experience that fill in "How did we do"

>

surveys.

>
And I suspect that you haven't a clue who the C standards committee talk
to - and who those people in turn have asked.

>
By imference you do - so who are they?
>

11. nullptr for clarity and safety.

>
Never understood that in C++ never mind C. NULL has worked fine for 50 years.

 And it's been a hack for 50 years. Especially when it is just:
    #define NULL 0

The common definition in C is :
#define NULL ((void*) 0)
Some compilers might have an extension, such as gcc's "__null", that are used instead to allow better static error checking.
(In C++, it is often defined to 0, because the rules for implicit conversions from void* are different in C++.)

 You also need to include some header (which one?) in order to use it.

<stddef.h>, as pretty much any C programmer will know.

I'd hope you wouldn't need to do that for nullptr, but backwards compatibility may require it (because of any forward-thinking individuals who have already defined their own 'nullptr').
 

No, nullptr is a keyword in C23.