WG14 Post Santa Clara mailing available

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Keld_J=F8rn?= Simonsen]

The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I also updated some of the other information on the pages.

Best regards
Keld Simonsen

[Keith Thompson]

Keld Jørn Simonsen <ke**@dkuug.dkw rites:

The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I also updated some of the other information on the pages.

I suggest posting these announcements to comp.std.c. (A cross-post to
comp.lang.c would probably be ok.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Antoninus Twink]

On 12 Oct 2008 at 18:58, Keith Thompson wrote:

Keld Jørn Simonsen <ke**@dkuug.dkw rites:

>The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I suggest posting these announcements to comp.std.c. (A cross-post to
comp.lang.c would probably be ok.)

Really? How magnanimous! Normally only versions of the C Standard that
were released before the Barcelona Olympics are considered topical here
by you and your allies.

[jacob navia]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 12 Oct 2008 at 18:58, Keith Thompson wrote:

>Keld Jørn Simonsen <ke**@dkuug.dkw rites:

>>The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I suggest posting these announcements to comp.std.c. (A cross-post to
comp.lang.c would probably be ok.)

Really? How magnanimous! Normally only versions of the C Standard that
were released before the Barcelona Olympics are considered topical here
by you and your allies.

The C standard is off topic here

!!!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:

The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I also updated some of the other information on the pages.

Best regards
Keld Simonsen

Thanks for this info.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>Keld Jørn Simonsen <ke**@dkuug.dkw rites:

The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14
web site at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I suggest posting these announcements to comp.std.c.
(A cross-post to comp.lang.c would probably be ok.)

Really? How magnanimous! Normally only versions of the C
Standard that were released before the Barcelona Olympics are
considered topical here by you and your allies.

The C standard is off topic here

Now Twink is a pure troll, and only posts to disturb the
newsgroup. You, on the other hand, may disagree with many, but at
least don't appear to bear c.l.c any ill will. Such a comment, if
not surrounded by smilies, is highly harmful and will mislead all
newbies. Even with smilies, it is not good.

Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >
<http://c-faq.com/ (C-faq)
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html (topicality)
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf(C99)
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net/download/n869_txt.bz2 (pre-C99)
<http://www.dinkumware. com/c99.aspx (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ (GNU docs)
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_community:com p.lang.c:Introd uction>

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 13 Oct 2008 at 0:24, CBFalconer wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Antoninus Twink wrote:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:
Keld Jørn Simonsen <ke**@dkuug.dkw rites:
The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14
web site at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

I suggest posting these announcements to comp.std.c.
(A cross-post to comp.lang.c would probably be ok.)

Really? How magnanimous!

The C standard is off topic here

Such a comment, if not surrounded by smilies, is highly harmful and
will mislead all newbies. Even with smilies, it is not good.

Who is smiling?

[Paul Hsieh]

On Oct 12, 3:59*am, Keld Jørn Simonsen <[e-mail] rote:

The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

There appears to be some movement towards deprecating auto. However,
the C++ people want to specifically use auto for implicit type
declarations in the next standard:

auto p = find (specificParame ter);

the idea being that p becomes declared with the type that find
returns.

So do you guys even pay attention to each other or what?

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/

[Richard Heathfield]

Paul Hsieh said:

On Oct 12, 3:59 am, Keld Jørn Simonsen <[e-mail] rote:

>The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

There appears to be some movement towards deprecating auto.

Good. It's about time.

However,
the C++ people want to specifically use auto for implicit type
declarations in the next standard:

auto p = find (specificParame ter);

the idea being that p becomes declared with the type that find
returns.

So do you guys even pay attention to each other or what?

I don't follow. C and C++ are different languages. They have superficial
similarities for historical reasons, but it is already easy to write good
C that is not legal C++, and trivial to write good C++ that is not legal
C. It is even possible (and not particularly difficult) to write a program
that is legal in both languages but does completely different things
depending on which language the compiler is told it's written in. I see no
particular value in C continuing to maintain a completely useless dinosaur
just because the C++ folks have suddenly discovered brontoburgers.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

Paul Hsieh <we******@gmail .comwrites:

On Oct 12, 3:59*am, Keld Jørn Simonsen <[e-mail] rote:

>The Post Santa Clara mailing is now available from the WG14 web site
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14

There appears to be some movement towards deprecating auto. However,
the C++ people want to specifically use auto for implicit type
declarations in the next standard:

auto p = find (specificParame ter);

the idea being that p becomes declared with the type that find
returns.

So do you guys even pay attention to each other or what?

Why yes, they do. If you meant to imply otherwise, you've chosen a
particularly odd example.

n1343.pdf, part of the Post Santa Clara mailing, says:

2.2.1 Deprecate "auto" (N1296) (Stoughton)

General agreement to deprecate the "auto" keyword. Should we ask
WG21 to go back to the previous use of "register" (no
address). No, this will not fly with WG 21.

This is in the "LIAISON ACTIVITIES" section.

n1296.pdf, referred to by n1434 says:

Liaison Statement from WG 21 to WG 14

At their February 2008 meeting, WG 21 decided to remove the
storage class specifier "auto" from the C++ language, as proposed
in their paper N2546. This storage class specifier was inherited
from the C language, but is rarely if ever used in C++. In
investigating this, it was also noted that very few if any uses of
"auto" could be found in C programs either.

It is the C++ intention to start using "auto" for a totally
different purpose, and to that end WG 21 would like to encourage
WG 14 to review the role of "auto" in their upcoming revision of
the C standard, and either deprecate or remove it as appropriate.

(WG 21 is the C++ committee; WG 14 is the C committee.)

So yes, they seem to pay a great deal of attention to each other.

Using auto in C for the same purpose as the new C++ will use it is an
interesting idea, but I don't think it has quite as much benefit for C
as it does for C++.

Note that deprecating "auto" means that it would remain in the next
version of the standard, but would be considered for removal in the
next one after that, so it would likely continue to be standard C for
the next 20 years or so. I'm not sure whether it would be better to
allow it to be used as an ordinary identifier or not, but there's
plenty of time to decide.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"