5 ms·
This is a completely unfair mischaracterization. A lot of these ARE relevant and useful improvements to the C language itself; constexpr reduces the need for m
by myrmidon 4y ago
This is a completely unfair mischaracterization.
A lot of these ARE relevant and useful improvements to the C language itself; constexpr reduces the need for macro-constants (which is nice), ability to specify the enum storage type is often helpful and clean keywords for static_assert etc. are a good idea too.
And getting rid of the "void" for function arguments is basically the best thing since sliced bread.
- Kranar 3y ago> constexpr reduces the need for macro-constants const is sufficient to eliminate the use of macro-constants with the exception of the use of such constants by the preprocessor itself (in which case constexpr is also inapplicable).
- peterfirefly 3y ago#define DEF (ABC+(GHI<<JKL_SHIFT))
- Kranar 3y agoPlease make a point.
- peterfirefly 3y agoI did. This is exactly what we need for constexpr for.
- Kranar 3y agoNothing you've demonstrated requires the use of constexpr. A const is perfectly suited for that.
- peterfirefly 3y agoOne of us doesn't know C.
- Kranar 3y agohttps://godbolt.org/z/de1YGG5r1 https://godbolt.org/z/de1YGG5r1 I hope for your sake that you don't speak this way other than anonymously on the Internet; it reflects very poorly of you.