4 ms·
In theory the standards committee could decide to add _array_ref to the language (or some variation on pointer+length). &myArray[10] could create an _array_ref
by xenadu02 7y ago
In theory the standards committee could decide to add _array_ref to the language (or some variation on pointer+length). &myArray[10] could create an _array_ref where sizeof works against it and attempts to take a slice past the end of the array abort. I can even imagine compatibility shims like __attribute__((array_ref(1,2))) similar to printf-style format decorators that tell the compiler how to map function parameters of pointer+length to _array_ref.
There are many technical details to be worked out and choices to be made but there is no fundamental intractable problem preventing it. We'd have incremental adoption over many years. Maybe some legacy code would never be updated.
The primary blocker is getting the committee members to admit this is a problem that should be solved. That is difficult enough here on HN, where some people are still arguing that C is fine as-is and we just need to invent better programmers / better tools.
Ultimately C's lack of better string support comes from its lack of better array support. That comes from a certain subset of the programmer community that believes the status-quo is fine and isn't interested in such changes.
- pornel 7y agoIt would be so nice if C had "fat pointers" (ptr+len). It's such an obvious small change that would have a massive impact on usability and safety. Unfortunately, C is dead. Microsoft thinks C is dead, and intentionally keeps their compiler awful. Even ISO WG doesn't seem to have a vision for C's future and have been rearranging deck chairs for the last 20 years.
- ncmncm 7y agoWe already know C's future. The people using old C are self-selected as those who like it the way it is. They accepted atomics because of new hardware. The place to ask for new, better stuff is at the C++ desk, and it has lots already.
- klingonopera 7y agoWell, it has. You just said so, it's (ptr+len). ...it's the philosophy of the C language: There's minimal bloat on the upside, but you have to know what you're doing and how to be able get it on the downside.
- pornel 7y agoThat's like saying C doesn't need pointers in the type system, because it already has pointer-sized integers (BCPL actually had that philosophy). Slices greatly improve interfaces. Especially if you want to return a (sub)slice of something, C doesn't have any non-clunky solution.
- rurban 7y agoI wouldn't call ASCIIZ arrays "strings" anymore. Strings need to be nowadays all unicode, where most use utf-8. None of that is in the standard. Only very minor unicode support and no utf-8.