Re: do { quit; } else { }

On 09.05.2025 17:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 09/05/2025 16:04, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 09.05.2025 um 17:01 schrieb Scott Lurndal:

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:

Am 06.04.2025 um 17:14 schrieb Tim Rentsch:
>

My impression was that "defer", or something very much like
it, is being considered for inclusion in a future C standard. ...

>
With C++ you can have defer without extending the language.

>
This, however is comp.lang.c.

>
I'm just trying to make it clear that C lacks convenience
and  productivity on every level.

 
Then use something convenient and productive. But please confine your
discussions of your chosen alternative to
comp.lang.your.chosen.alternative instead of dragging them into
comp.lang.c, where we discuss C.
 

C folks simply don't want
to abandon their minimalism paradigm, which continues to
make the language very difficult to use.

 
Then do by all means use something easier. But please confine your
discussions of your chosen alternative to
comp.lang.your.chosen.alternative instead of dragging them into
comp.lang.c, where we discuss C.

(That post sounds and is written like a mantra. Gee!)

Since some folks feel comfortable in their "C" bubble I understand
that these people might feel annoyed by such posts.

But showing deficiencies (in "C") and providing counter-examples or
alternatives from other languages [as done here] should be welcome.
(IMO. YMMV, of course.)

(Note: I'm not saying that the previous post's content is correct,
just that it was obviously meant as an improvement, which could or
not affect evolution of "C" if considered; a point for discussion
[for those who think it's worth].)

But of course no one forces these annoyed people to read all posts;
suggestions had already been given to just skip those inconvenient
threads or subhreads.

Janis

[...]