3 ms·

"the UNIX bubble" is an interesting take in the context of C, given the origins of C Is your point "why did posix not establish a prefix_ ... _suffix" combo, a

by froh 1y ago

"the UNIX bubble" is an interesting take in the context of C, given the origins of C Is your point "why did posix not establish a prefix_ ... _suffix" combo, and maybe even better some reserved "prefix_" namespace? which --- I think --- for better or worse leads to the reality that C doesn't have a namespace mechanism, like, say, Java.

flohofwoe 1y ago
Well, C does have a namespace mechanism, it's called prefixes ;) It's just unfortunate that both POSIX and the C stdlib don't use prefixes (except for the new C23 stdc_ functions which is going into the right direction at least). The problem with C++ style namespaces as language feature is that they require name mangling, which opens up a whole new can of worms. In the end, the POSIX _t just means "don't blame us when your library names collide with POSIX names", and that's fine. Other platforms have that problem as well, but the sky hasn't fallen because an occasional type or function name collision.
- froh 1y ago
  thanks for clarifying. to all of this I agree: if the linker doesn't have namespaces (and it doesn't, unlike, say, the Java class loader, or even more extravagant the OSGi bundle loading mechanism), you need to flatten names into one name space. Which means, as you say, name mangling. and that, even without overloading, is a major PITA. and indeed, not prescribing a prefix and just blocking a useful suffix was also an idea others hopefully took as inspiration how to not do things... wrt prefixes in the C stdlib, I'd strictly prefer the prefix to be '#define' able, so _if_ you need to move th stdlib to a namespace, #define the prefix before #include-ing the library. needs a statically linked trampoline, though or some other nasty lionk time mechanism. meh. there is a reason languages come with namespaces from the start, these days ...

by froh 1y ago

flohofwoe 1y ago

Well, C does have a namespace mechanism, it's called prefixes ;) It's just unfortunate that both POSIX and the C stdlib don't use prefixes (except for the new C23 stdc_ functions which is going into the right direction at least). The problem with C++ style namespaces as language feature is that they require name mangling, which opens up a whole new can of worms. In the end, the POSIX _t just means "don't blame us when your library names collide with POSIX names", and that's fine. Other platforms have that problem as well, but the sky hasn't fallen because an occasional type or function name collision.

froh 1y ago
thanks for clarifying. to all of this I agree: if the linker doesn't have namespaces (and it doesn't, unlike, say, the Java class loader, or even more extravagant the OSGi bundle loading mechanism), you need to flatten names into one name space. Which means, as you say, name mangling. and that, even without overloading, is a major PITA. and indeed, not prescribing a prefix and just blocking a useful suffix was also an idea others hopefully took as inspiration how to not do things... wrt prefixes in the C stdlib, I'd strictly prefer the prefix to be '#define' able, so _if_ you need to move th stdlib to a namespace, #define the prefix before #include-ing the library. needs a statically linked trampoline, though or some other nasty lionk time mechanism. meh. there is a reason languages come with namespaces from the start, these days ...