Re: do { quit; } else { }

On 11/04/2025 19:29, David Brown wrote:

On 11/04/2025 18:56, bart wrote:

That's not right. You pasted part of 6.7p1. The full syntax for declarations comprises all of 6.7.p1, plus 6.7.1p1, 6.7.2p1, 6.7.2p2 (constraints to do with the ordering of long, int etc), 6.7.2.1, 6.7.2.2, 6.7.3, 6.7.6, 6.7.7, and 6.7.8.
>

 It is the full syntax for declaration specifiers - the matter under discussion.  I did not include initialisation, static assertions, the syntax for identifiers, or any number of different parts of the syntax of C.

So how much of:
   long unsigned const long const const typedef int A;
does it cover? I can see that it doesn't cover any of the terminals (all tokens up to 'A'); the identifier ('A'); or the semicolon.
I suggest there's more missing that you seem to think.

I could spend all day showing absurdity after absurdity in C. And you're saying /my/ language is a toy?!

 Yes.
 It is a toy because it is a personal little language for your ego. There is no specification or description of it, there are no serious implementations of it, there are no users of it other than you, there is no consistency in it - you change your language and your tools to suit the program you are writing at the time, and regularly don't know yourself how it works or what features it has.  It is in no sense "battle-tested" - the only user writes code that he knows will not cause trouble.  Thus you avoid all the issues that real languages have to handle - real programs written by many different people for many different purposes.

Yes, it is partly experimental. But how does that invalidate the usefulness of a particular feature?
How does that invalidate its sane left-to-right type syntax compared to the nightware syntax that C uses?
Even an experimental language can throw up dozens of useful features and improvements.
'Battle-testing' is more useful for getting solid implementations, finding bugs, filling in patches in coverage. But I am not providing an implementation, only ideas and comparisons of language features.
You were talking about named arguments, well here is how /my/ version works (which i first tried 30 years ago); here is the benefit of my experience; here is how I solved the same problems you might have.
My language has been in use for over 40 years, and it has been self-hosted in a continuous chain over the same period. That's some toy.
It has also managed to evolve a lot more than C has, BECAUSE there are few users and there is a small codebase.

You are like an Esperanto fanatic trying to tell people their language is so much better than English because the spelling is consistent, so the world would be a better place if we all switched over.  Except in your case, you are the only one who speaks the language.

(Huh. I grow up, in the UK, in a family and circle of relatives where we spoke our own obscure dialect from a region of Italy. We seemed to get by.)
Computer languages are different: if you have a compiler for a private language, then it can do anything. Plus it is possible to write conversion programs to advantage of tooling available for the more mainstream language.

I have never heard of anyone other than you who views cdecl as a necessity.  A tiny proportion of C programmers find it helpful when dealing with code written by others - especially if the code is written in a poor style and the reader is relatively new to C.

Rubbish. Everyone finds C declaration syntax a nightmare.