Re: do { quit; } else { }

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 05:45:19 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>

On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 07:32:16 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>

On Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:47:47 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Furthermore, even if there had been a posting that concerns
only a gcc extension and nothing else, and is one I didn't
respond to, that doesn't excuse your action.  It isn't like
this is the first time you have posted something here that
is not about C but only about your fantasy language, and
also not the first time the unsuitability of such postings
has been pointed out.  You're a repeat offender.  So stop
pretending you are being picked on for no reason.

>
Could you recommend a more appropriate place for Thiago and others
where they can discuss C-like fantasy languages?

>
The newsgroup comp.lang.misc seems like a natural candidate.
I don't know if comp.lang.misc has an official charter, but at
least to me new features of any widely used programming language
would appear to fall under the umbrella of comp.lang.misc.

>
My question was not completely abstract.
I did consider starting a discussion about possibility of inclusion
of stackless co-routines into one of the future editions of C.
Naturally, my ideas at this state are extremely in-concrete, much
more so then the post of Thiago Adams that started this thread.
So, if I ever come to it, which by itself is not very likely, do you
think that comp.lang.misc would be better place than comp.lang.c ?

>
Before giving an answer I would like to ask some questions.
>
* How much does the (still fuzzy) idea depend on running in a C
  environment?  Is it very specific to C, or might it be applicable
  to other procedural/imperative languages (for example, Pascal)?
>
* How much does the current C language impact what you expect to
  propose?  Which aspects of C need to be taken into consideration
  in forming the proposal, and how strongly do those considerations
  affect the specifics of what would be proposed?

[...]

My apologies;  I gave the wrong impression.  I didn't mean I wanted
to see the answers myself.  What I did mean is that the questions
are good for you (or someone else) to ask of themselves to decide
whether comp.lang.c or comp.lang.misc (or possibly some other group)
is a better place for a posting.

Given that the details seem to be still a bit fuzzy, I tend to think
comp.lang.misc is a better place to start.  But after thinking about
the questions you might decide otherwise.

* Assuming you get to a point where you are happy with the details
  of a proposed extension, how likely is it that you would write a
  proposal for the C standard committee, and make the effort needed
  to shepherd it through the process of being accepted for a future
  C standard?

>
Not likely.  I would have to somehow convince somebody else to do it.

I see.  Well, good luck with that.  :)