Re: C23 thoughts and opinions

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

[comments on various new features in C23]

Overall I am quite disappointed by C23.  IMO it's a step
backwards rather than forwards.

W.r.t. [asctime() and ctime() being removed]
IMHO, all old-UNIX-style APIs that return pointers to static
objects within library or rely on presence of static object within
library for purpose of preserving state for subsequent calls
should be systematically deprecated and for majority of them there
should be provided thread-safe alternatives akin to ctime_s().
>
That is, with exception of family of functions that uses FILE*.
Not that I like them very much, but they are ingrained too deeply.
So, peeking just asctime and ctime out of long list of problematic
APIs does not appear particularly consistent.  If they were asking
me where to start, I'd start with rand().

I agree with the suggestion that restartable versions of "dirty"
functions be added to the C standard.  I strongly disagree that
the old ones should be taken out.  If compilers choose to give
warnings, that's fine, but these functions should not be removed
just because some people think they are clunky.

[...]  Just want to say that strfrom* family is long overdue, but
still appear incomplete.  The guiding principle should be that all
format specifiers available in printf() with sole exception of %s
should be provided as strfrom* as well.

What's the motivation for having separate functions?  To me this
looks like creeping featuritis.