4 ms·
It seems to me if ANY one group of people should be allowed to add new keywords to the user namespace, it should be the standard bearers. The whole _Keyword thi
by pkmays 14y ago
It seems to me if ANY one group of people should be allowed to add new keywords to the user namespace, it should be the standard bearers. The whole _Keyword thing is something only a committee could love.
- exDM69 14y agoThe whole _Keyword thing is to make it easier to port from older C standards to the new standard. It's not really supposed to be programmer-visible, only a workaround for compilers. There is an extensive explanation about the reasoning behind this solution in the spec. Read that and come back if you still have a problem with making forward-compatibility hacks.
- yxhuvud 14y agoOn a similar note, what is up with thrd_timedout, thrd_success, thrd_busy, thrd_error, thrd_nomem? Why no ea's?
- mattgreenrocks 14y agoThat's horrible. I read it the first time as "third success." At least "mtx" is a little easier to see (though still quite silly). Can anyone defend this?
- adestefan 14y agoThe Cxx committees try really had to make everything backwards compatible. This includes trying to not step on existing namespaces. These names, along with mtx, etc., are just going overboard though.
- cpeterso 14y agoIf the C committees want to avoid namespace collisions, why not use _Keyword style names like _Mutex_init and _Mutex_destroy?