Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:38:03 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 02/04/2025 16:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:59:45 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled: 

On 02/04/2025 16:05, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: 

I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any
correspondence with anyone from the committee so they get an
entirely biased sample. Just like its usually only people who had
a bad experience that fill in "How did we do" 

 

surveys. 

>
And I suspect that you haven't a clue who the C standards
committee talk to - and who those people in turn have asked. 

 
By imference you do - so who are they?
 

11. nullptr for clarity and safety. 

 
Never understood that in C++ never mind C. NULL has worked fine for
50 years. 

 
And it's been a hack for 50 years. Especially when it is just:
 
   #define NULL 0
 
You also need to include some header (which one?) in order to use it.
I'd hope you wouldn't need to do that for nullptr, but backwards
compatibility may require it (because of any forward-thinking
individuals who have already defined their own 'nullptr').
 
 

C23 is rather bold in that regard, adding non-underscored keywords as
if there was no yesterday. IMHO, for no good reasons.