2 ms·

Note that the original post is not up to date with the C23 developments on the subject, wherein the standards people appear to have noticed that nobody has ever

Note that the original post is not up to date with the C23 developments on the subject, wherein the standards people appear to have noticed that nobody has ever cared about overbroad reservations like str*, is*, to*, and E*, and introduced a notion of “potentially reserved identifier” that I have so far been unable to understand. The relevant paper, “What we think we reserve”[1], has been folded into the draft standard. [1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n2625.pdf https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n2625.pdf (I hope that’s the right version)

Joker_vD 4y ago
Basically, the wording is so that they can advise implementations to complain on potentially invalid-in-the-future uses of "potentially reserved identifiers", but invalid uses of actually reserved identifiers are still "requires no diagnostics". They feel that allows them to extend the already way too vast amount of reserved identifiers even further without any reservations. Yes, that means that an implementation will warn you that your code might break in the future, but on the day when it actually breaks, it will just stop complaining. Why they could not just mandate detecting invalid uses of reserved identifiers is beyond me.