3 ms·
Nope. I'm specifically describing only the rough edges of C. Things like defining a NULL pointer to convert from any zero value. Nothing as ambitious as a nrw
by jjnoakes 10y ago
Nope. I'm specifically describing only the rough edges of C.
Things like defining a NULL pointer to convert from any zero value.
Nothing as ambitious as a nrw language, like I said above.
I want a modern version of exaxtly what C is, without some of these undefined or implementation defined legacy warts.
And I understand that defining some things may make the program barely measurably slower. Someone can opt in to raw C if they care. It could even be in the same file... Think scoped "pragma overflow" directives that last for the lexical scope to get raw speed by opting out of defined semantics.
- stephen82 10y agoI guess what you really want is what Microsoft is trying to resolve with Checked C in order to bridge the C gap with C++. Here's the link if you are interested: https://github.com/Microsoft/CheckedC https://github.com/Microsoft/CheckedC
- jjnoakes 10y agoI don't think so; Checked C looks to be focusing on array bounds checking and adds new syntax, new pointer types, etc. I want to focus on cleaning up C as it is. I don't want a new syntax or new semantics outside of defining some/most of what is undefined today.
- stephen82 10y agoI would be more than interested to see a demo code using pseudo-language to explain exactly the concept you have in mind. That would be more than interesting for lots of us and you never know; we might get something out of it and why not implement it as a FOSS project?
- jjnoakes 10y agoThe friendly C and boring C proposals are quite close to what I'm thinking of. I was sad to see friendly C abandoned. I hope to find the time shortly to take a stab at something along those lines.