11–15 of 15 posts
It's a unary operator, kind of like ~ or !, which can apply to parenthesis (), until it meets a type, then the parenthesis are mandatory: int x; sizeof x; // okay sizeof (x); // okay sizeof int; // not okay sizeof (int); // okay It's a weird double rule to parse, but even worse, the strongest binding precedence typically doesn't like an alpha identifier at that point in the recursive descent, so you get weird rules l…
> (everything here also applies to c2y's newly introduced _Countof) Stop the press, they're adding what ? So I don't have to keep adding #define count_of(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(*arr)) to every codebase and living with its failure modes? I'm really loving C's character arc at the moment, where they keep going back to fix old problems instead of piling everything and the kitchen sink into the language.
Yeah, despite puritanical hand-wringing over C23, I do like both the discipline and the selectivity with WG14 has shows (and I say this as a card-carrying C++ hater). I do wish they will start looking into proper arrays since there is already a syntax for this can can be augmented semantically: int func (int arg[static 5])
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, despite puritanical hand-wringing over C23, I do like both the discipline and the selectivity with WG14 has shows (and I say this as a card-carrying C++ hater). I do wish they will start looking into proper arrays since there is already a syntax for this can can be augmented semantically: int func (int arg[static 5])
Can you explain what you mean exactly regarding this augmenting this syntax?
It's a unary operator, kind of like ~ or !, which can apply to parenthesis (), until it meets a type, then the parenthesis are mandatory: int x; sizeof x; // okay sizeof (x); // okay sizeof int; // not okay sizeof (int); // okay It's a weird double rule to parse, but even worse, the strongest binding precedence typically doesn't like an alpha identifier at that point in the recursive descent, so you get weird rules l…
> (everything here also applies to c2y's newly introduced _Countof) Stop the press, they're adding what ? So I don't have to keep adding #define count_of(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(*arr)) to every codebase and living with its failure modes? I'm really loving C's character arc at the moment, where they keep going back to fix old problems instead of piling everything and the kitchen sink into the language.
C23 and C2y have plenty of kitchen sink features.