The C23 edition of Modern C

Post by xbar » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #136

zkirill wrote: post #29

I was going to ask if there is a good list of C books and then answered my own question. It categorizes _Modern C_ as Intermediate level. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/562303/the-definitive-c-...

Note that this is not a complete list, fwiw. For example, I doesn't include "Effective C." [1]. I like "Effective C" over "Modern C" because it's more engaging ... "Modern C" is super rigorous and feels a bit like reading an annotated spec of the language, which is what an expert may need, but makes for a dull read for a casual C user like me. -- 1: https://nostarch.com/effective-c-2nd-edition

Post by flohofwoe » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

jhatemyjob wrote: post #147

Can someone link me to an article that explains why C is basically frozen at C99 for all practical purposes? Few projects worth talking about leverage features from C11 and newer

Post by johnisgood » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:44 PM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #239

humanrebar wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC Clang implements a C++ style auto, while GCC implements a C style auto, which has subtle differences for 'auto pointers' - not sure if those differences have been fixed in the meantime Both have compatibly implemented the standard C++ auto. Since 2011 or so.

Well, not in C :) Here's an example where Clang and GCC don't agree about the behaviour of auto in C23: https://www.godbolt.org/z/WchMK18vx IIRC Clang implements 'C++ semantics' for C23 auto, while GCC doesn't. Last time I brought that up it turned out that both behaviours are 'standard compliant', because the C23 standard explicitly allows such differing behaviour (it basically standardized the status quo even if di…

Post by chongli » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:54 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #62

tialaramex wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why use this operator? Like most C and C++ features the main reason tends to be showing off, you learned a thing (in this case that there are four extra operators here) and so you show off by using it even if it doesn't make the software easier to understand. This is not one of those beginner -> journeyman -> expert cycles where coincidentally the way you wrote it as a beginner is identical to how an expert writes it…

The idiomatic void strcpy(char *s, char *t) { while (*s++ = *t++) ; } (straight from K&R) wouldn’t work without it.

Post by ryao » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #139

uecker wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Also it might it sound like array-to-pointer decay is forced onto the programmer. Instead, you can take the address of an array just fine without letting it decay. The type then preserves the length.

C: int foo(int a[]) { return a[5]; } int main() { int a[3]; return foo(a); } > gcc test.c > ./a.out Oops. D: int foo(int[] a) { return a[5]; } int main() { int[3] a; return foo(a); } > ./cc array.d > ./array core.exception.ArrayIndexError@array.d(1): index [5] is out of bounds for array of length 3 Ah, Nirvana! How to fix it for C: https://www.digitalmars.com/articles/C-biggest-mistake.html