Re: do { quit; } else { }

On 11/04/2025 13:51, bart wrote:

On 11/04/2025 10:17, David Brown wrote:

On 10/04/2025 21:27, bart wrote:

On 10/04/2025 20:05, David Brown wrote:

 

C rarely makes things more complicated without a good reason.

>
C usually makes things more complicated without a good reason!

>
Nope.
>

>
Here's one example, of dozens, of perfectly legal C:
>
   long unsigned const long const const typedef int A;
   int long unsigned const long const const typedef A;
   long unsigned const long const typedef int A;
   .....
>

>
That is not more complicated, nor is it without good reason.

 Huh? That demonstrates several things:
 1 That the same identifier can be redeclared multiple times

Many types of declarations can be repeated, as long as they define the same identifier to be the same thing.  If you want the details, they are in section 6.7 of the standard.

 2 That 'typedef' needn't be on the left, but can be anywhere in the middle of a type spec

Correct.  Putting it anywhere other than the left may be disallowed sometime in the future (it is an "obsolescent feature"), but it is currently supported in C.

 3 That 'const' can also be anywhere inside the type spec

Correct.

 4 That duplicate 'const's are tolerated

Correct.

 5 That the three tokens ('int', 'unsigned' and two 'long's) denoting the type can be be any order (and mixed up with other attributes)
 

Correct.
You seem to think that allowing a variation in the way a declaration is made makes the feature "more complicated".  That is simply incorrect. The feature - the syntax and the rules in the language definition - are /less/ complicated because of this flexibility.  It means the syntax here can be, as given in 6.7p1 :
declaration-specifiers:
storage-class-specifier declaration-specifiers opt
type-specifier declaration-specifiers opt
type-qualifier declaration-specifiers opt
function-specifier declaration-specifiers opt
alignment-specifier declaration-specifiers opt
If the order were to be strictly specified, there would need to be a half-dozen more named and defined specifier lists in the syntax.
It would certainly have been possible to specify an order - either in the syntax or the constraints.  I think that would have been a good idea, and would make C code a little more consistent.  But by the time this was codified, there was probably a variety of orderings in use in real code, and such ordering would make the standard, and therefore the language, a little more complicated.

I missed out:
 6 'int' can be optionally omitted in this case.
 That makes it pretty complicated to me! And I can't see that any of these are necessary.

No one suggested it was at all necessary.