Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:23:58 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 02/04/2025 17:26, 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?

>
That's an unwarranted inference.  I assume that they talk with compiler

You *assume* "they", whoever they are. Oh well, thats definitive then.

11. nullptr for clarity and safety.

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

>
>
If ignorance really is bliss, you must be the happiest person around.
Or you can read one of my other posts pointing out the advantages of
nullptr.

Compile them into a book and publish it. In the meantime I have better things
to do than trawl back through god knows how many posts to find them.

 A number of these changes did come over from C++, yes.  That does not
mean they are not useful or wanted in C - it means the C world is happy
to let C++ go first, then copy what has been shown to be useful.  I
think that is a good strategy.
>
Some people (including me) will choose to use C++, but others prefer to
(or are required to) use C.

I can't imagine many situations outside of maybe speclialist hardware scenarios
where the C compiler isn't also a C++ compiler.