3 ms·

The other fun wart with `static` is C++ doesn't support it. So it has to be macro'd out in headers shared with C++. https://godbolt.org/z/z9EEcrYT6 https://go

• pjmlp 11mo ago
  And probably never will, because C++ compatibility with C beyond what was done initially, is to one be close as possible but not at the expense of better alternatives that the language already offers. Thus std::array, std::span, std::string, std::string_view, std::vector, with hardned options turned on. For the static thing, the right way in C++ is to use a template parameter, template<typename T, int size> int foo(T (&ary)[size]) { return size; } -- https://godbolt.org/z/MhccKWocE https://godbolt.org/z/MhccKWocE If you want to get fancy, you might make use of concepts, or constexpr to validate size at compile time.
  • loeg 11mo ago
    I guess. I think it's mostly not a very useful part of C, so it doesn't see much adoption in C anyway. In these applications, size and T are fixed -- you'd just take `std::span<uint8_t, XCHACHA20POLY1305_NONCE_SIZE>` rather than templating.
    • uecker 11mo ago
      The C feature does not have to be fixed-size though.
      • loeg 11mo ago
        The authors in the article want a fixed-sized feature; C just doesn't have it.
        • uecker 11mo ago
          C has this fixed-sized feature which is what the article points out.
• flohofwoe 11mo ago
  Not surprising and not a "wart". C and C++ have diverged since the mid-90s and are two very different languages now. E.g. trying to build C code with a C++ compiler really doesn't make much sense anymore (since about 20 years).
  • loeg 11mo ago
    People still routinely want to incorporate C libraries in C++ code, using C headers. It mostly works.
    • Arch-TK 11mo ago
      Sure, but it works mostly by intentional hobbling of headers. Meanwhile in other languages you just write/generate bindings and they survive it.
      • loeg 11mo ago
        The most important C feature that C++ lacked for a long time was C99 designated initializers, but C++ finally supports them in C++20[0]. Other than that... I'm not sure what hobbling you have in mind. Many C23 features come directly from earlier C++ standards (auto, attribute syntax, nullptr, binary literals, true/false keywords). VLAs? Though these are optional in newer C standards, too. [0]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/aggregate_initialization.html#Designated_initializers https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/aggregate_initial...
        • uecker 11mo ago
          For me it is complex and variably modified types (mandatory in C23).
        • flohofwoe 11mo ago
          > C99 designated initializers, but C++ finally supports them in C++20 Unfortunately C++20 designated init has been butchered so much compared to the C99 that it is pretty much useless in practice except for the most trivial structs (for instance designators must appear in order of declaration, array item init is completely missing, designator chaining doesn't work ... and those are only the most important things).