3 ms·
The common theme of this whole series of articles is basically "GCC extensions allow abominations".
by pkasting 1mo ago
The common theme of this whole series of articles is basically "GCC extensions allow abominations".
- uecker 1mo agoI don't think this is really about GCC extensions (or obsolete language modes) rather than using the flexibility of the syntax to write things in a confusing way. The first is simply K&R definitions + strange formatting.
- nneonneo 1mo agoOnly the first one is fully standards-compliant C; the others all invoke some non-standard (but widely-accepted) features. (I believe empty unions - and their interpretation as being 0-sized - are non-standard in C, but I am not 100% sure.)
- uecker 1mo agoMy point was not that those are standards-compliant, but that the use of the GCC extensions is not the primary cause of those examples being unreadable. (which seemed to be the point the person I replied to was making - and I disagree with GCC extensions being bad).
- icedchai 1mo agoI always forget K&R syntax is still in there. I taught myself C in 1988, during the K&R -> ANSI transition. All my early Amiga C programs were K&R style.