When I saw the title I assumed it was originally "Why I" or "How I" and was trimmed automatically by HN, but this is the original. Could it be that the author was influenced by HN's title guidelines and titled it thus?
I write type-safe generic data structures in C
91–100 of 196 posts
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#92Another way is to not try to write generic data structures. When you tailor them to the use case you can simplify. The #1 data structure in any program is array.
When all you have are arrays, everything looks like a problem you solve with arrays. There are quite a few problems that specialised containers are suited for, that's why they were created.
And you can write them when you need them.
The situation where you need a red black tree with 10 different key/value combos isn’t real.
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the C compiler accepts it, it is C.
Pedantically, the preprocessor is an entirely separate language. The lexing, parsing, expressions, and semantics are totally distinct. The preprocessor is usually implemented as a completely independent program. My first C compiler did integrate the preprocessor with the C compiler, but that was for performance reasons. Currently, ImportC runs cpp and then lexes/parses the resulting C code for use in D.
It is part of the C standard. Whether it is part of a separate binary is an implementation choice.
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#94Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pedantically, the preprocessor is an entirely separate language. The lexing, parsing, expressions, and semantics are totally distinct. The preprocessor is usually implemented as a completely independent program. My first C compiler did integrate the preprocessor with the C compiler, but that was for performance reasons. Currently, ImportC runs cpp and then lexes/parses the resulting C code for use in D.
It is part of the C standard. Whether it is part of a separate binary is an implementation choice.
True on both counts. But they are still separate and distinct languages.
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#96Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#97Dude the ship has sailed.
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, as far back as 2015 my feature check library documents Visual Studio as supporting "__typeof".[1] Note the leading but not trailing underscores. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I usually tested that sort of thing. It's also possible __typeof had slightly different semantics. [1] See https://github.com/wahern/autoguess/blob/b44556e4/config.h.g... (that's the 2015 revision, but HEAD has the same code).
msvc 19.39 is the first to support it, which I mention in the article. You can confirm it didn't work up through 19.38 in godbolt [1]. I don't use Visual Studio, so I don't know what version of that first started using msvc 19.39 [1] https://godbolt.org/z/M7zPYdssP
This is gonna haunt me.
Digging through some old code of mine (circa 2009) I found this bit:
#elif _MSC_VER >= 1310
#define typeof(type) __typeof(type)
[1] See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/overview/compiler-vers... for mapping between Visual Studio versions and _MSC_VER.
EDIT: Ah ha! It seems Microsoft did support __typeof, but perhaps only for "managed" C++ (aka C++ .NET)?
> One thing to watch out for when using the __typeof operator in managed C++ is that __typeof(wchar_t) can return different values depending on the compilation options.
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2002... (See also https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2005...)
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#99Dude the ship has sailed.
Not sure what you mean by that, but if you're trying to imply that C is not relevant: https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
Plus an article about C was at the top of hacker news all day today.
Re: I write type-safe generic data structures in C
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
When all you have are arrays, everything looks like a problem you solve with arrays. There are quite a few problems that specialised containers are suited for, that's why they were created.
And you can write them when you need them. The situation where you need a red black tree with 10 different key/value combos isn’t real.
You could take away anything you use and say "but we could make it ourselves", that doesn't mean it's helpful.