Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

On Sat, 10 May 2025 17:48:20 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 06:43:38 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> gabbled:

never necessary).  Also it isn't easy to think of a good substitute
word that might be given for this use of 'static', so maybe the

>
Isn't it?
>
Where "static" means local to a module the words "local","module","limit"
spring to mind which are far closer to the intended meaning. Reusing "static"
seems somewhat perverse IMO.

>
'local', 'module', 'limit' are common words used as identifiers in five
decades of C code.  Using them as keywords in a newer version of C would
not be desirable.   Whereas the new flavor of 'static' won't break any
existing code, and provides a concrete benefit.

Overloading the same keyword to mean different things is never desirable IMO
otherwise taken to its logical conclusion you might as well just have 1 keyword
that does everything.

Compiler switches are a thing - if there's a name clash with your old code
don't compile it with the new version of the language. I'm sure plenty of old
C code used variable names such as "new" or "class" so it can't be compiled
by a C++ compiler.