Named parameters

[Adam Ruth]

Hello,

Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
but it is a bit of an obscure topic.

Thanks for the info,

Adam Ruth

[Jack Klein]

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Hello,

Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
but it is a bit of an obscure topic.

Thanks for the info,

Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

There has never been much support for it in the past, and it would
break an enormous amount of existing code. Google for prior
discussions on comp.std.c.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

[Micah Cowan]

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) writes:

Hello,

Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

Thanks, but our parameters already *have* names :-) :-p

I'm assuming you mean something like where if you have the
prototype:

void foo(int bar, int baz, int quux);

Then you could call foo() as:

foo(baz = 15, quux = 42, bar = 32);

That is, in any order, provided they are named.

We actually already have something similar for initializers of
structs and arrays now, but I guess nobody cared enough about
using it for function calls. I don't really, either, FWIW. But I
wouldn't really be surprised to see them in a future version of
the Standard.

If you really want it, it wouldn't be extremely difficult to
write your own preprocessor which would translate such calls
appropriately. :-)

--
Micah J. Cowan
mi***@cowan.name

[Sheldon Simms]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Hello,

Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
but it is a bit of an obscure topic.

Thanks for the info,

Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally

There has never been much support for it in the past,
and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
syntax error in C99. For example:

int foo (int bar, int baz) {
...
int main (void) {
...
return foo (baz:15, bar:-23);
}

With grammar changes:

argument-expression-list:
argument-expression
argument-expression-list "," argument-expression

argument-expression:
assignment-expression
identifier ":" assignment-expression
Whether it's particularly useful is another question. With
default arguments in the function definition, I think it
probably would be a nice to have.

-Sheldon

[Jack Klein]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
<sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Hello,

Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
but it is a bit of an obscure topic.

Thanks for the info,

Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally

There has never been much support for it in the past,
and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
syntax error in C99. For example:

int foo (int bar, int baz) {
...
int main (void) {
...
return foo (baz:15, bar:-23);
}

With grammar changes:

argument-expression-list:
argument-expression
argument-expression-list "," argument-expression

argument-expression:
assignment-expression
identifier ":" assignment-expression
Whether it's particularly useful is another question. With
default arguments in the function definition, I think it
probably would be a nice to have.

-Sheldon

That's not the problem, that's easy.

The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
names.

Consider even, in one source file:

int func(int one, int two);

/* stuff */

int func(int two, int one)
{
/* ... */
return some_thing;
}

/* still later */

int otherfunc(void)
{
int x = /* whatever */;
int y = /* something else */;

int z = func(one:x, two:y);
}

Other than the named parameters in the call, the above is perfectly
legal C89 and C99.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq

[Sheldon Simms]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:28:47 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
<sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

> On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
> comp.lang.c:
>
>> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C?
>
> It has been discussed occasionally
>
> There has never been much support for it in the past,
> and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
syntax error in C99.

That's not the problem, that's easy.

The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
names.

Consider even, in one source file:

int func(int one, int two);

/* stuff */

int func(int two, int one)
{
/* ... */
return some_thing;
}

/* still later */

int otherfunc(void)
{
int x = /* whatever */;
int y = /* something else */;

int z = func(one:x, two:y);
}

Other than the named parameters in the call, the above is perfectly
legal C89 and C99.

Well it's really only a problem if the same name is used for
different parameters in different prototypes and not enough
other named arguments are supplied for disambiguation (which
is obviously impossible in your example).

I can think of several solutions to the problem off the top of
my head. The most comprehensive would require augmenting the syntax
for parameter-declarations. The minimal would simply declare the use
of named parameters in that situation to be undefined behavior.
In between would be to associate the arguments with the actual
parameters according to the "last" prototype seen.

-Sheldon

[Dan Pop]

In <l6********************************@4ax.com> Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> writes:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
<sh**********@yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

> There has never been much support for it in the past,
> and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

Bullshit: it won't break any single piece of existing code, because
existing code doesn't use the (currently non-existing) feature.

Furthermore, I have yet to see a piece of C code where a function
declaration uses different parameter names than the function definition
(if the function declaration uses parameter names at all).

Any well written C program will contain exactly *one* declaration
and one definition for each global function it defines. Local functions
should have only the definition (except for the special case of
coroutines). More than that would create maintenance overheads.
It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
syntax error in C99.

Exactly!
That's not the problem, that's easy.

The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
names.

Non-issue: it is the one prototype that is currently in scope that
matters. The standard will simply have to specify which prototype is in
scope, if multiple prototypes are encountered: the first or the last.
Right now it doesn't matter, because the parameter names are ignored by
the compiler, only their types are relevant.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Adam Ruth]

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<6r********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Hello,
[snip...]
Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

[Joona I Palaste]

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<6r********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

> Hello,
> [snip...]
> Adam Ruth
It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?
Contrary to what people might think, comp.std.c is for the computer
standard about C, not the C defined in that standard.

It's really rather easy to figure out, once you grasp the idea that
Usenet newsgroup names are parsed in a strict left-to-right fashion.

comp: something about computers
comp.lang: something about computer languages
comp.lang.c: the computer language C

comp: something about computers
comp.std: something about computer standards
comp.std.c: the computer standard about C

***THE WRONG WAY!***
comp: something about computers
comp..c: something about the computer language C
comp.std.c: the C defined in the computer standard

See how the middle row skips over one part of the name and the bottom
row goes back to it? That's not how left-to-right parsing works.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"You will be given the plague."
- Montgomery Burns

[Kevin Bracey]

In message <bn**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<6r********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

> Hello,
> [snip...]
> Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?

No need to get sarky.
It's really rather easy to figure out, once you grasp the idea that
Usenet newsgroup names are parsed in a strict left-to-right fashion.

comp: something about computers
comp.lang: something about computer languages
comp.lang.c: the computer language C

I think the point is that in the absence of an official charter, there
is an implicit ".iso-standard" at the end of "comp.lang.c", leaving anything
even vaguely system-specific or only partially portable without a home.
Most other comp.lang.* groups aren't that intolerant.

I mean, for example, what newsgroup would you discuss some detail of the EDG
compiler in? In the absence of a specific newsgroup, normal Usenet etiquette
would suggest comp.lang.c to be the closest match. My point is that it's no
use shouting "off-topic" at posters if you haven't got somewhere better for
them to go. And I don't really believe that more general groups like
"comp.programming" are better for something that is C-related.

As for suggestions about things that could be added to C, surely it's
reasonable to start the discussion in comp.lang.c? It's not as though the
original poster was necessarily wanting to launch straight into the
standardisation process.

Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of the regulars only come here to
be unpleasant to newcomers and score pedantry points off of each other.
More than the Usenet average, I mean. Couldn't we hive off all the pedantry
to comp.lang.c.standard or something?

--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: [phone]
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: [phone]
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/

[Thomas Stegen]

Joona I Palaste wrote:

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?

You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.

Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

--
Thomas.

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Thomas Stegen <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:

Joona I Palaste wrote:

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?

You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.

Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@freenet.de)

[Adam Ruth]

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bn**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<6r********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

> Hello,
> [snip...]
> Adam Ruth

It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?
Contrary to what people might think, comp.std.c is for the computer
standard about C, not the C defined in that standard.

What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
before I make a decision where to post?

What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
one place?

The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
discuss those issues much here.".

Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
newsgroup? I hope not.

Adam Ruth

[Adam Ruth]

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Thomas Stegen <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:

Joona I Palaste wrote:

What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
about the computer language C?

You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.

Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Regards

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

[nrk]

<snip>

Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
newsgroup? I hope not.

Not at all. Discussions of topicality are always topical :-)

-nrk.

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

Because:

- questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
- questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
- questions about C plus non-standard/implementation-dependent
extensions to the language are topical in newsgroups dedicated to
these extensions/implementations. If there is no such group, there is
still comp.programming.

HTH
Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@freenet.de)

[pete]

Adam Ruth wrote:

What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
before I make a decision where to post?

What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
one place?

The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
discuss those issues much here.".

Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
newsgroup? I hope not.

It's not too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup.
Topicality is on on topic everywhere always.
This newsgroup is USENET first and about C second.

You would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c,
we don't really discuss those issues much here.

The past and present versions are on topic here.
The many non-standard versions and extensions are not.

The people who will actually be making the changes
to the future version, are on comp.std.c.
They like to discuss ideas regarding future changes to the language.

--
pete

[Adam Ruth]

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<gg********************************@4ax.com>. ..

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

Because:

- questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
- questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
- questions about C plus non-standard/implementation-dependent
extensions to the language are topical in newsgroups dedicated to
these extensions/implementations. If there is no such group, there is
still comp.programming.

HTH
Regards

Great non-answer, you already pointed this out.

Let's look at the topic of the question:

"Has there been talk of adding named parameters to C?"

1) Not really a question about 'pure' standard (ISO) C.
2) Not really a question about the C (ISO) standard.
3) Not really a question about non-standard/implementation dependent
extensions.

So where does it go? Even if there was a non-standard implementation
of this functionality, how would I know which newsgroup to ask it in,
should it have been posted in all of them? What if that particular
implentation doesn't have a newsgroup?

This may come as a shock to you, but it's actually possible for a
question to apply to more than one newsgroup.

Technically, it's not a question about C so much as it is a question
about a discussion about C. Should that go to comp.lang.discussion.c?
It's possible take pedantry too far.

[Adam Ruth]

pete <pf*****@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<3F***********@mindspring.com>...

Adam Ruth wrote:

What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
before I make a decision where to post?

What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
one place?

The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
discuss those issues much here.".

Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
newsgroup? I hope not.

It's not too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup.
Topicality is on on topic everywhere always.
This newsgroup is USENET first and about C second.

You would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c,
we don't really discuss those issues much here.

The past and present versions are on topic here.
The many non-standard versions and extensions are not.

The people who will actually be making the changes
to the future version, are on comp.std.c.
They like to discuss ideas regarding future changes to the language.

Thank you. Had I actually known there was a comp.std.c newsgroup I
would have posted the question there (we can't all be intimately aware
of the usenet structure). I would still have posted the question
here, because my question really is bigger than the standard.

The problem is, that to know the limits of the comp.lang.c newsgroup,
it needs to be taken in context with all of the other newsgroups (it's
not so much an issue of where does comp.lang.c end, but where does
comp.std.c begin). And as I said before, there's nothing in the
comp.lang.c name or in the FAQ that would lead someone to think that
the question was off-topic.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Thomas Stegen <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

CSC discusses the Standard itself ie the actual document, and possible
changes to it.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 07:37:48 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<gg********************************@4ax.com>. ..

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote:

- questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
- questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
Great non-answer, you already pointed this out.

"Has there been talk of adding named parameters to C?"

This is a questsion about changing the Standard. Hence its topical in
CSC.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Pichler]

"Adam Ruth" <ow***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0**************************@posting.google.c om...

What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
before I make a decision where to post?

What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
include reference to the standard.
As far as I can see, it was more a case of *recommendation* to ask the
folks in the newsgroup where you are more likely to get a competent
answer, rather than "shunting you off".

You got an answer to you question, in a direct reply to your first post,
by Jack Klein:

"It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is."
The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
discuss those issues much here.".

You may have a point here, but believe me, no one meant to be inpolite
to you. Simply read the former as the latter, there is no reason to take
offence. BTW note the word "really" in Jack's response. It does soften it
a bit, doesn't it?

HAND,

Peter Pichler

[Peter Pichler]

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:k9********************************@4ax.com...

On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam: it is not really obvious from the
group's name. Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

[Joona I Palaste]

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Thomas Stegen <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
> > about the computer language C?
>
> You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
> the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.
>
> Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.
Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

In the context of comp.lang.c, standard C and C are the same thing.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:29:34 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Peter Pichler"
<pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:k9********************************@4ax.com.. .

On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

>Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.
You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam:

I've no problem agreeing with the "why?" part.
it is not really obvious from the group's name.
Group names don't typically define the purpose of a group. They're a
hint, little more.
Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

Which is of course what the nettiquette guidelines tell people to do!!

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Pichler]

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:nk********************************@4ax.com...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:29:34 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Peter Pichler"
<pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

....

it [the topic of clc] is not really obvious from the group's name. ....Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

Which is of course what the nettiquette guidelines tell people to do!!

You know it and I know it. But does the OP? ;-)

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Adam Ruth wrote:

Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup?

Hi Adam.

I see that you have already met our "off-topic cops".

The comp.lang.c newsgroup is *not* moderated.
The off-topic cops are merely expressing their personal opinions --
which they have every right to do.
Please feel free to ignore them if you do not agree.
Subscribers to comp.lang.c will respond to your question
if they feel that it is on-topic and will ignore it
if they feel that it is not.

Jack Klien, Sheldon Simms and Dan Pop have seen fit
to respond to your question and I would advise that
you pick up the discussion with them rather than
waste your time with the off-topic cops.
I also believe that Jack Klein gives sound advice.
You *should* follow-up in the comp.std.c newsgroup
but you shouldn't expect the feature to be added
to standard C until about 2009.

The best way to deal with off-topic questions is to ignore them.
The best way to deal with off-topic cops is to ignore them.

[Adam Ruth]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<9c********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 31 Oct 2003 07:37:48 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<gg********************************@4ax.com>. ..

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote:

- questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
- questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c

Great non-answer, you already pointed this out.

"Has there been talk of adding named parameters to C?"

This is a questsion about changing the Standard. Hence its topical in
CSC.

You *assume* it's a question about chaging the standard.

[Adam Ruth]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<nk********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:29:34 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Peter Pichler"
<pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:k9********************************@4ax.com.. .

On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

>Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam:

I've no problem agreeing with the "why?" part.

it is not really obvious from the group's name.

Group names don't typically define the purpose of a group. They're a
hint, little more.

Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

Which is of course what the nettiquette guidelines tell people to do!!

Newsgroups should have posted charters. Having to divine the topic of
a newsgroup by reading tea leaves for a few weeks is a stupid idea.

FWIW, I did read this newsgroups for several weeks before I had a
question to post. Not once did I see a message referring to the
distinction between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c and I read well over
100 postings.

[Adam Ruth]

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bn**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...

Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> scribbled the following:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<31********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Thomas Stegen <ts*****@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>
> > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
> > about the computer language C?
>
> You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
> the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.
>
> Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
as has already been pointed out upthread.

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

In the context of comp.lang.c, standard C and C are the same thing.

Let me rephrase. "It wasn't a question about the C standard, it was a
question about C."

[Adam Ruth]

"Peter Pichler" <pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote in message news:<1T******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...

"Adam Ruth" <ow***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0**************************@posting.google.c om...

What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
before I make a decision where to post?

What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
include reference to the standard.

As far as I can see, it was more a case of *recommendation* to ask the
folks in the newsgroup where you are more likely to get a competent
answer, rather than "shunting you off".

You got an answer to you question, in a direct reply to your first post,
by Jack Klein:

"It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is."

The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
discuss those issues much here.".

You may have a point here, but believe me, no one meant to be inpolite
to you. Simply read the former as the latter, there is no reason to take
offence. BTW note the word "really" in Jack's response. It does soften it
a bit, doesn't it?

HAND,

Peter Pichler

I wasn't actually complaining about Jack's response, taken on it's own
it was perfectly reasonable, and I did appreciate the answer.

What did bother me was that I kept seeing "off-topic" messages in the
newsgroup, yet no one has taken the effort to create a charter to put
into the FAQ. I think some people take a perverse joy in pointing out
the foibles of others, at least that's how it appears to a lurker.

What I really took exception with were the responses I got when I
pointed out that the topic of the newsgroup isn't as clear as it could
be. Some of those responses were very rude and condescending. All my
ire has been directed toward them, not Jack. He was a bit brusque,
but that's okay.

[Adam Ruth]

"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<3F************@jpl.nasa.gov>...

Adam Ruth wrote:

Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup?

Hi Adam.

I see that you have already met our "off-topic cops".

The comp.lang.c newsgroup is *not* moderated.
The off-topic cops are merely expressing their personal opinions --
which they have every right to do.
Please feel free to ignore them if you do not agree.
Subscribers to comp.lang.c will respond to your question
if they feel that it is on-topic and will ignore it
if they feel that it is not.

Jack Klien, Sheldon Simms and Dan Pop have seen fit
to respond to your question and I would advise that
you pick up the discussion with them rather than
waste your time with the off-topic cops.
I also believe that Jack Klein gives sound advice.
You *should* follow-up in the comp.std.c newsgroup
but you shouldn't expect the feature to be added
to standard C until about 2009.

The best way to deal with off-topic questions is to ignore them.
The best way to deal with off-topic cops is to ignore them.

Thank you for the sound advice. I won't continue to feed this
ungainly creation of mine... to paraphrase Tevya, "It is dead to me".

[Chris Torek]

>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:29:34 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Peter Pichler"

<pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

["That which is topical in comp.lang.c"] is not really obvious
from the group's name.

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in
message news:<nk********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Group names don't typically define the purpose of a group. They're a
hint, little more.
Indeed, a short string of words and abbreviations (like "comp.lang.c"
or, to name two groups I do not read, "rec.arts.int-fiction" and
"soc.culture.magyar") is simply not *enough*.
Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

Which is of course what the nettiquette guidelines tell people to do!!

For good reason. Still, as Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> writes
in article <f0**************************@posting.google.com >:
Newsgroups should have posted charters. Having to divine the topic of
a newsgroup by reading tea leaves for a few weeks is a stupid idea.
Charters are a good idea. Comp.lang.c lacks one because it predates
charters -- this newsgroup was around when I started reading Usenet
in 1982 or 1983 or so (though under the name "net.lang.c" at the
time). It might be nice to write one, but I am not volunteering. :-)
I doubt that a good charter is easy to write, and doubt even more
that any charter -- good or bad -- would be easily accepted.
FWIW, I did read this newsgroups for several weeks before I had a
question to post. Not once did I see a message referring to the
distinction between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c and I read well over
100 postings.

This group gets more than 100 postings per *day*, and has for some
years now. (I remember, back in 1983ish, when every article posted
to Usenet came over our 300 baud modems in under an hour a day most
days -- which puts the data size around 100 kbytes per day. These
days I believe the flow rates are over 100 kbytes per minute, for
a complete feed. Not that I track these things myself.)

Still, the precise distinction between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c
material is, I think, not posted as often as semimonthly. But it
is easy to gather an idea about it: simply read both groups for
several weeks. :-)

In this particular case (asking about named parameters), I think it
can be topical on *both* groups. In comp.std.c one can ask whether
any future standard might include them, and whether there is any
existing work that can be referenced. In comp.lang.c one can ask
whether there is a way to at least "fake them" now -- and there is!

In particular, it is possible to obtain named parameters in C99.
You simply have to stop using ordinary function calls as if they
were ordinary function calls. Instead, pass your parameters as if
you were writing Mesa code: construct a "record" -- in C, called
a "struct" -- using the C99 "compound literal" syntax. Here is an
example function:

struct copysign_args { double value; double sign_to_copy; };

double just_like_copysign(struct copysign_args args) {
return copysign(args.value, args.sign_to_copy);
}

and a call to it that names the parameters and thus passes them
in reverse:

/* replace zog with appropriately-signed value */
zog = just_like_copysign((struct copysign_args){
.sign_to_copy = desired_sign,
.value = zog});

This method even provides default initializers for missing arguments,
provided you are happy with 0, 0.0, or NULL (as needed). :-)

The drawbacks to this method are that it is ugly, and on many
machines today (but not usually the x86), it is likely to be slower
than ordinary parameter passing. (There is no fundamental reason
passing a struct by value should be any slower than passing all
its component elements by value -- it is trivial for a C compiler
to convert a call of the form f(structure) to one of the form
fprime(structure.first, structure.second, structure.third, ...,
structure.last) -- but too many ABIs have encoded silly rules about
passing structures values by secret pointer, which will force
unnecessary memory copies instead of simple register parameters.
Also, this can be one of those chicken-and-egg situations: the
calls are slow because nobody cares how fast they go, and nobody
cares how fast they go, because those programmers who do care
already know they go slow and expand out the component values, thus
there is no incentive to make them fast. Hence, they are slow,
and....)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[Peter Pichler]

"Chris Torek" <no****@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message
news:bn*********@elf.eng.bsdi.com...

Indeed, a short string of words and abbreviations (like "comp.lang.c"
or, to name two groups I do not read, "rec.arts.int-fiction" and
"soc.culture.magyar") is simply not *enough*.
In fact, soc.culture.magyar is descriptive enough to those who can speak
(both English and) Magyar, i.e. Hungarian :-)
This group gets more than 100 postings per *day*

Indeed. I find it really puzzling where you guys find all the time to
answer 200 odd posts every day, often within minutes. I am really
impressed.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <s4****************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
Peter Pichler <pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

Indeed. I find it really puzzling where you guys find all the time to
answer 200 odd posts every day, often within minutes. I am really
impressed.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's usually five or ten minutes
at a time.

With a few people, preferably distributed between a few different time
zones, doing that, we can make it look like we have a lot more time than
we really do.
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Now begone, foul fiend, into the pit of off-topic doom. And good luck
with your project.
--Richard Heathfield in comp.lang.c

[Chris Torek]

>"Chris Torek" <no****@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message

news:bn*********@elf.eng.bsdi.com...

Indeed, a short string of words and abbreviations (like "comp.lang.c"
or, to name two groups I do not read, "rec.arts.int-fiction" and
"soc.culture.magyar") is simply not *enough*.
In article <s4****************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Peter Pichler <pi*****@pobox.sk> writes:

In fact, soc.culture.magyar is descriptive enough to those who can speak
(both English and) Magyar, i.e. Hungarian :-)
I would assume as much -- but from the name alone, I cannot tell
whether this is "Hungarian culture in general" or "things specific
to those who speak Magyar". For example, would a discussion of
the cultural effects of Mongolian raids on the area that is now
part of Hungary be topical?
This group gets more than 100 postings per *day*

Indeed. I find it really puzzling where you guys find all the time to
answer 200 odd posts every day, often within minutes. I am really
impressed.

The odder the better :-) In any case, my answer rate goes up rather
steeply on weekends, these days.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://67.40.109.61/torek/index.html (for the moment)
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[James Hu]

On 2003-10-30, Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<6r********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote in
comp.lang.c:

>
> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C?

It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

The C-faq doesn't address topicality directly as an FAQ, but it
does mention the comp.lang.c topicality litmus test in a single
sentence in the fourth paragraph to the answer of question 19.1:

"Since comp.lang.c is oriented towards those topics that the C
language has defined support for, you will usually get better
answers to other questions by referring to a system-specific
newsgroup such as comp.unix.questions or comp.os.msdos.programmer,
and to the FAQ lists for these groups."

This sentence was provided in the context of character-at-a-time
input, but it does clearly indicate what sorts of topics are
discussed in comp.lang.c.

[ Steve, if you are reading this, do you think a question regarding
comp.lang.c topicality warrants its own FAQ? ]

Your question:

> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C?

This is asking if extending C to support named parameters has
ever been discussed. Jack's response was dead on. This is
a question about changing the existing C standard.

It sometimes happens (perhaps less often than it should) that an
off-topic question will be adjusted to become on-topic. Such an
occurrence has happened to your question. Chris Torek started a
new thread adjusting the question to be:

Is there a way in C to write programs as if it did have named
parameters?

And (as usual) he provides an excellent answer.

-- James

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 19:36:19 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

You *assume* it's a question about chaging the standard.

Adam, I'm not trying to be difficult but:

Question "has anyone considered adding named parameters to C?"

C doesn't support named parameters. To add them would require a change
to the Standard. QED.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 19:42:18 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Newsgroups should have posted charters.
Not all groups have charters. Some, such as CLC, predate the charter
idea, being in usenet terms prehistoric.
Having to divine the topic of
a newsgroup by reading tea leaves for a few weeks is a stupid idea.
There's a FAQ, and a regular "welcome" message, posted roughly every
couple of weeks if Billy remembers. The latter mentions the topic, the
former should make it pretty clear.
FWIW, I did read this newsgroups for several weeks before I had a
question to post. Not once did I see a message referring to the
distinction between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c and I read well over
100 postings.

Grin. If you only read 100 postings, you didn't read for several weeks
- I read around 200 posts per DAY here.

And in any events, nobody flamed you for posting in the wrong place -
people merely redirected you. If you take umbrage at that, expect long
threads involving flames !!
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 19:43:08 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<bn**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...

In the context of comp.lang.c, standard C and C are the same thing.

Let me rephrase. "It wasn't a question about the C standard, it was a
question about C."

Okay, let me rephrase the answer. You want to ask a question about
changing C so that it includes named parameters. Thats offtopic in CLC
which discusses C as it /currently/ exists (including historical
implementations). Your idea involves changing the Standard, which is
discussed over in CSC, or it involves implementation-specific
extensions, which are discussed in the relevant implementation
specific group. .

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 19:51:33 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

What did bother me was that I kept seeing "off-topic" messages in the
newsgroup, yet no one has taken the effort to create a charter to put
into the FAQ.
There's no need - anyone reading this group would see all the "you're
off topic" postings, and should be able to divine the topic surely?
Seriously.
I think some people take a perverse joy in pointing out
the foibles of others, at least that's how it appears to a lurker.
Alternatively they consider it valuable to point people to the right
place.
What I really took exception with were the responses I got when I
pointed out that the topic of the newsgroup isn't as clear as it could
be. Some of those responses were very rude and condescending.

Ha!!! You've not been round here long have you? None of the responses
you got were very rude or condescending, believe me. When people are
rude to you here, you'll know. Boy will you know.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mark McIntyre]

On 31 Oct 2003 23:17:50 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Thank you for the sound advice. I won't continue to feed this
ungainly creation of mine... to paraphrase Tevya, "It is dead to me".

Just for your information., E Robert Tisdale is a widely despised
Troll, whose advice should be taken with a MASSIVE pinch of salt. Do
not trust anything he writes about C for instance.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

ow***@hotmail.com (Adam Ruth) wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz <ir*******@freenet.de> wrote in message news:<gg********************************@4ax.com>. ..

- questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
- questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
- questions about C plus non-standard/implementation-dependent
extensions to the language are topical in newsgroups dedicated to
these extensions/implementations. If there is no such group, there is
still comp.programming.
Great non-answer, you already pointed this out.

Let's look at the topic of the question:

"Has there been talk of adding named parameters to C?"

1) Not really a question about 'pure' standard (ISO) C.

Right.
2) Not really a question about the C (ISO) standard. Wrong.
3) Not really a question about non-standard/implementation dependent
extensions. Right.
So where does it go? To c.s.c.
Even if there was a non-standard implementation
of this functionality, how would I know which newsgroup to ask it in,
should it have been posted in all of them? What if that particular
implentation doesn't have a newsgroup? Ask in c.p or do a web-search.
This may come as a shock to you, but it's actually possible for a
question to apply to more than one newsgroup. Then cross-post.
Technically, it's not a question about C so much as it is a question
about a discussion about C. Should that go to comp.lang.discussion.c? Since there is no c.l.discussion.c, c.s.c is obviously the best place.
It's possible take pedantry too far.

It's possible to post to the most appropriate ng.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@freenet.de)

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

"Peter Pichler" <pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

(Adam Ruth) wrote:

Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam: it is not really obvious from the
group's name. Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

Which is the recommended practice, after reading the charter or welcome
message and the FAQ-list for the ng in question.

Regards
--
Irrwahn
(ir*******@freenet.de)

[Adam Ruth]

Chris Torek <no****@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message news:<bn*********@elf.eng.bsdi.com>...

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:29:34 -0000, in comp.lang.c , "Peter Pichler"
<pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:
["That which is topical in comp.lang.c"] is not really obvious
from the group's name.

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in
message news:<nk********************************@4ax.com>. ..

Group names don't typically define the purpose of a group. They're a
hint, little more.

Indeed, a short string of words and abbreviations (like "comp.lang.c"
or, to name two groups I do not read, "rec.arts.int-fiction" and
"soc.culture.magyar") is simply not *enough*.
Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.Which is of course what the nettiquette guidelines tell people to do!!

For good reason. Still, as Adam Ruth <ow***@hotmail.com> writes
in article <f0**************************@posting.google.com >:

Newsgroups should have posted charters. Having to divine the topic of
a newsgroup by reading tea leaves for a few weeks is a stupid idea.

The problem is never knowing when you've done it enough (1 week, 2
weeks, 6 months?). At least if there was a FAQ or charter you'd know
when you had enough information, and you'd never be in doubt. And
although I don't think "What's the topic of comp.lang.c?" is a very
frequently asked question, it certainly is a very frequently provided
answer! I think it's demonstrable that the extant information on the
topic is not sufficient, otherwise people wouldn't have to be told so
much.
In this particular case (asking about named parameters), I think it
can be topical on *both* groups. In comp.std.c one can ask whether
any future standard might include them, and whether there is any
existing work that can be referenced. In comp.lang.c one can ask
whether there is a way to at least "fake them" now -- and there is!

In particular, it is possible to obtain named parameters in C99.
You simply have to stop using ordinary function calls as if they
were ordinary function calls. Instead, pass your parameters as if
you were writing Mesa code: construct a "record" -- in C, called
a "struct" -- using the C99 "compound literal" syntax. Here is an
example function:

And that's where my wording got me. I have been thinking of using the
structure method, but I was hoping to hear if there was a better way,
but I didn't ask it correctly (ah, wonderful hindsight!). My thought
process was more along the lines of what you suggest, but I viewed it
as "adding it to C" because it's not part of the standard or any
implementation I know of.

Anyway, it's good to know that my method wasn't completely barking up
the wrong tree. It's still ugly (and maybe slow), but it's helpful
when you have several parameters all of the same type.

[Adam Ruth]

dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote in message news:<bn**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>...

In article <s4****************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
Peter Pichler <pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote:

Indeed. I find it really puzzling where you guys find all the time to
answer 200 odd posts every day, often within minutes. I am really
impressed.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's usually five or ten minutes
at a time.

With a few people, preferably distributed between a few different time
zones, doing that, we can make it look like we have a lot more time than
we really do.
dave

Whatever smoke and mirrors you use, I'd like to say that we all
appreciate your efforts. I've found many a useful answer here.

[Dan Pop]

In <Sd******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> "Peter Pichler" <pi*****@pobox.sk> writes:

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:k9********************************@4ax.com.. .

On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c , ow***@hotmail.com
(Adam Ruth) wrote:

>Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

You have the groups confused:

CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam: it is not really obvious from the
group's name. Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

It is obvious, once you ask yourself: what is the definition of the C
programming language?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Peter Pichler]

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:bo***********@sunnews.cern.ch...

In <Sd******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> "Peter Pichler"

<pi*****@pobox.sk> writes:

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam: it is not really obvious from the
group's name. Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

It is obvious, once you ask yourself: what is the definition of the C
programming language?

Go on then what is it? ;-)

[James Hu]

"Peter Pichler" <pi*****@pobox.sk> wrote in message news:<rc*****************@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:bo***********@sunnews.cern.ch...

In <Sd******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> "Peter Pichler"

<pi*****@pobox.sk> writes:

But I must grudgingly agree with Adam: it is not really obvious from the
group's name. Not without hanging around for a few weeks and reading,
reading, reading... before first posting.

It is obvious, once you ask yourself: what is the definition of the C
programming language?

Go on then what is it? ;-)

This is a C-faq. Please refer to the answer to question 11.1.

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

-- James

--
The C-faq. -Light.Crisp.Refreshing- (store in a cool place)