Viewing profile — rseacord
rseacord
HN member- Joined
- Sun, Mar 29, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 560
- Public activity
- 55 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About rseacord
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #26791260
I like Effective C: An Introduction to Professional C Programming https://nostarch.com/Effective_C but I would since I wrote it.
-
comment
Comment #25420250
Please submit a proposal.
-
comment
Comment #25420221
I've heard this comment more than once. What we are trying to accomplish is to collocate the resource acquisition code with the acquisition release code. This does mean that the re…
-
comment
Comment #25420137
Yes, you are correct and there wasn't much support for capturing values so we would probably only support capture by reference and wait to see if C solves this problem in general b…
-
comment
Comment #25420072
Based on feedback from the committee, I think it's very unlikely a dynamic approach will be used. The static only affects the for loop in terms of whether the deferred statements a…
-
comment
Comment #25419995
Based on committee discussion, I think it is unlikely we will attempt to capture the values. The capture will most likely be done by reference. This case of the defer in the loop i…
-
comment
Comment #22872000
Yes, my mistake--I was thinking of Rhode Island. I wrote a short bit about this at https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and-events/b... if anyone is interested.
-
comment
Comment #22871793
Should work provided your wchar_t type is at least 21-bits wide.
-
comment
Comment #22870344
I don't really see C going anywhere. It's not going away, and it's not going to evolve into Java. It's going to remain especially useful for memory constrained and performance crit…
-
comment
Comment #22870266
For (3) mandatory warnings the closest thing is probably ISO/IEC TS 17961:2013. The purpose of ISO/IEC TS 17961 is to establish a baseline set of requirements for analyzers, includ…
-
comment
Comment #22870210
Many of your remaining questions have devolved into "When will I see my favorite feature xyz appear in the C Standard?" The answer in most cases is "that depends on how long it tak…
-
comment
Comment #22870076
For (2) I guess it depends. Annex K is obviously already a part of the standard so it depends on the implementation. There is a push to eliminate Annex K altogether from the C Stan…
-
comment
Comment #22870012
Going to try to answer these separately. For (1) if you mean strings that are primitive types my guess is never. When had an hour discussion on this topic at a London meeting where…
-
comment
Comment #22868143
So I spend a possibly unreasonable amount of time and page space discussing VLAs in the Effective C book. I understand there are some problems with them, but for what it is worth, …
-
comment
Comment #22868009
Microsoft originally implemented the Annex K Bounds checked interfaces (e.g., the *_s functions) back in the 1990s in response to well-publicized vulnerabilities. They proposed sta…
-
comment
Comment #22867888
I think a lot of these dudes are retired. A lot of good C people like P.J. Plauger, John Benito, and Clark Nelson have all retired recently. Anyway, they are all invited back. As a…
-
comment
Comment #22867664
Some example of hardware variation (since you mentioned shifting and overflow): - signed integer overflow or division by zero occurs, a division instruction traps on x86, while it …
-
comment
Comment #22867638
I would say that there is a lot of concern in the committee about how compilers are optimizing based on pointer providence. There has been a study group looking at this. It now app…
-
comment
Comment #22867578
Yes, we have discussed adding this feature at scope level. A not entirely serious proposal was to implement it as follows: #define DEFER(a, b, c) \ for (bool _flag = true; _flag; _…
-
comment
Comment #22867466
I would say that the committee does pay attention to hardware variations, even when there are no examples of existing hardware that implement a feature (for example, a trap represe…
-
comment
Comment #22867294
Aaron Ballman even got a u8 character prefix added to C2x: N2198 2018/01/02 Ballman, Adding the u8 character prefix http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2198.pdf
-
comment
Comment #22867220
It has not. The C Committee has taken two votes on this, and in each case, the committee has been equally divided. Without a consensus to change the standard, the status quo wins. …
-
comment
Comment #22867178
Uninitialized Reads https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3041020
-
comment
Comment #22867139
I don't know of any plans to add semantics for divide-by-zero of dereferencing a null pointer. I'm guessing this is not viable because there is no agreed upon semantics among diffe…
-
comment
Comment #22866997
Sounds like a good use of standardization. If there is existing implementation practice, please go ahead and submit a proposal. I would be happy to champion such a proposal if you …