Re: do { quit; } else { }

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:47:47 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
>

Em 4/4/2025 5:48 PM, Tim Rentsch escreveu:
>

Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes:
>

   What do you think of this control block?
>
   do
   {
      FILE f = fopen("file.txt", "r");
>
      if (f == NULL) quit; /*goes to else part*/
>
      /*success here*/
      for (int i =0; i < 10; i++){
          ...
          if (error) quit;
      }
>
   }
   else
   {
      /*some error*/
   }

>
I think it doesn't belong in comp.lang.c.
>
I also think you have been participating in comp.lang.c
long enough to know better.  Kindly take your language
fantasies somewhere else.

>
I think the only reason you're saying that is because it's not
implemented in GCC, Clang, or maybe even MSVC.

>
You are wrong.  I responded because there is nothing in
your posting that is suitable for comp.lang.c.
>

I've never seen you complain about any GCC extensions here.

>
I don't remember seeing any posting in comp.lang.c that
discusses a gcc extension and nothing else.  There are
plenty of postings that mention gcc extensions in passing,
along with other material that talks about C, but never
one that discusses gcc extensions exclusively.
>
Furthermore, even if there had been a posting that concerns
only a gcc extension and nothing else, and is one I didn't
respond to, that doesn't excuse your action.  It isn't like
this is the first time you have posted something here that
is not about C but only about your fantasy language, and
also not the first time the unsuitability of such postings
has been pointed out.  You're a repeat offender.  So stop
pretending you are being picked on for no reason.

>
More interesting question than the one above is:  why post of
Alexis from 3 months ago named "Opinion on defer" is on topic in
c.l.c ?

My impression was that "defer", or something very much like it, is
being considered for inclusion in a future C standard.  Isn't it the
case that Jens Gustedt is now the head of the C standard committee?
Of course I might be wrong about that, but that's what I thought
(and probably will still think unless and until I hear otherwise).
Surely any language feature being considered by the C committee for
inclusion in a future C standard, especially if it has been proposed
by the head of the committee, is a suitable topic for discussion in
comp.lang.c.  Does any reader feel differently?

How exactly can we draw a line between two cases?

A subjective line can be drawn by asking what fraction of the C
community at large has an interest in the feature or discussing the
feature (in both cases as a potential addition to the C standard).
If the fraction is 50% or higher then surely it is topical;  if the
fraction is 10% or lower then a different venue seems indicated.  In
between those two lines there are many different shades of gray.

Alternatively, a bright line can be drawn by asking whether there is
a proposal submitted to the C committee for the feature in question.
If a proposal has been submitted, then without question the matter
is suitable for comp.lang.c.  If a proposal has not been submitted,
then it seems reasonable to ask the question Why should this topic
be considered suitable for comp.lang.c, and in the absence of any
clear answer suggest that it is better taken elsewhere.

Do these guidelines seem satisfactory?  If not then what would you
say is missing?