3 ms·

By all means work on getting `_Generic` removed again if that is what you want. As long as the feature is there, it should endeavor to be the best possible ver

By all means work on getting `_Generic` removed again if that is what you want. As long as the feature is there, it should endeavor to be the best possible version of itself. Making it deliberately useless and unsuitable in order to avoid the obvious use of _doing different things for different types_ is really just having a suboptimal feature. And if it would make it a better feature to ignore the parts of the syntax, that are statically known to not be part of the program, it seems like low-hanging fruits. I'm sure there are philosophical reasons for every choice made in the design of this feature, but at the end of the day, users just see a feature being needlessly obtuse.

ajross 3y ago
> Making it deliberately useless How do you get "useless"? I literally showed five lines of code above that solve the putative problem with _Generic by leveraging an idiom we've been using for decades already. Meh. Use what you like. Clearly it's not C.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > I literally showed five lines of code above that solve the putative problem The top reply to your five lines literally points out why your solution doesn't solve the right problem. The macro you wrote puts the same definition everywhere. It can't even handle the original use case of calling a different function for each number type. If you're suggesting a combination approach of hiding the implementation with a macro until after _Generic gets resolved, I don't think that ordering is possible.