Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:08:58 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

On 10/04/2025 11:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:53:40 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 09/04/2025 21:11, bart wrote:

The sets of parameter names are all different (and that's in the same
file!); which is the official set?

>
C has had flexibility here for all sorts of reasons.  But if named
parameters were to be added to the language without significant extra
syntax, then this particular issue could be solved in at least two very
simple ways.  Either say that named parameter syntax can only be used if

 
Anyone who really wants named parameters at function calling can already do
this in C99:
 
struct st
{
         int a;
         int b;
         int c;
};
 
 
void func(struct st s)
{
}
 
 
int main()
{
         func((struct st){ .a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3 });
         return 0;
}
 

>
Ha, ha, ha!
>
Those aren't named parameters. It would be a dreadful solution anyway:

I never said they were , but they're the best you can do in C right now.

* Each function now needs an accompanying struct

Thanks sherlock.

Its obviously not the perfect solution but at the point of call it lets
you know which struct vars are being set to what.