Re: do { quit; } else { }

On 09/05/2025 17:54, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

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.)
 

Comparisons between C and other languages can certainly be on-topic for a C group.  And deficiencies of C are as topical as the language's good points.
However, Bonita's post here - like almost all Bonita's posts in this group - are not helpful or topical, but merely trolls of "C++ is vastly better than C - look at this line noise to see what you can do in C++".
Consider this about Bonita's post :
1. It was full of code in a non-topical language.
2. The code could not compile without additional headers, so is specific to the poster's machine.
3. No one asked for or showed any interest in having C++ code for a "defer" feature.  (Posting non-C code can be appropriate if other people want to see it.)
4. Everyone familiar with or interested in C++ will already know that you can make a "defer" feature in C++.  Any reasonably competent C++ programmer could make such a template class.
5. Everyone familiar with C already knows of the existence of C++, and knows where to find out more about it if it is of interest.
6. The post was about a "defer" feature, which was not in any way the topic of the thread.
7. The post was a reply to a month-old dead thread.
8. The poster has made vast numbers of such posts in this group, and has consequently been killfilled by many regulars here.
It is not at all surprising that people find Bonita's posts in comp.lang.c annoying, and would be happier if they were restricted to comp.lang.c++.  Most people just ignore them, others use killfiles, and some people optimistically try to persuade Bonita not to write such posts.  I'd be surprised if there was anyone who actually thought they were a positive contribution to the group.
As a general principle, I agree with you that languages other than C can at times be relevant and interesting in this group - but in this specific case, I see no value in Bonita's post.