Named parameters

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Adam Ruth, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    Hello,

    Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
    using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
    C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
    upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
    the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).

    Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
    but it is a bit of an obscure topic.

    Thanks for the info,

    Adam Ruth
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adam Ruth

    Jack Klein Guest

    On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    comp.lang.c:

    > Hello,
    >
    > Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
    > using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
    > C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
    > upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
    > the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).
    >
    > Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
    > but it is a bit of an obscure topic.
    >
    > Thanks for the info,
    >
    > Adam Ruth


    It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
    topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
    and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
    on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

    There has never been much support for it in the past, and it would
    break an enormous amount of existing code. Google for prior
    discussions on comp.std.c.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c /faq
     
    Jack Klein, Oct 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam Ruth

    Micah Cowan Guest

    (Adam Ruth) writes:

    > Hello,
    >
    > Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
    > using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
    > C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
    > upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
    > the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).


    Thanks, but our parameters already *have* names :) :p

    I'm assuming you mean something like where if you have the
    prototype:

    void foo(int bar, int baz, int quux);

    Then you could call foo() as:

    foo(baz = 15, quux = 42, bar = 32);

    That is, in any order, provided they are named.

    We actually already have something similar for initializers of
    structs and arrays now, but I guess nobody cared enough about
    using it for function calls. I don't really, either, FWIW. But I
    wouldn't really be surprised to see them in a future version of
    the Standard.

    If you really want it, it wouldn't be extremely difficult to
    write your own preprocessor which would translate such calls
    appropriately. :)

    --
    Micah J. Cowan
     
    Micah Cowan, Oct 30, 2003
    #3
  4. On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

    > On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    > comp.lang.c:
    >
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
    >> using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
    >> C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
    >> upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
    >> the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).
    >>
    >> Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
    >> but it is a bit of an obscure topic.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the info,
    >>
    >> Adam Ruth

    >
    > It has been discussed occasionally
    >
    > There has never been much support for it in the past,
    > and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.


    It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
    necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
    syntax error in C99. For example:

    int foo (int bar, int baz) {
    ...


    int main (void) {
    ...
    return foo (baz:15, bar:-23);
    }

    With grammar changes:

    argument-expression-list:
    argument-expression
    argument-expression-list "," argument-expression

    argument-expression:
    assignment-expression
    identifier ":" assignment-expression


    Whether it's particularly useful is another question. With
    default arguments in the function definition, I think it
    probably would be a nice to have.

    -Sheldon
     
    Sheldon Simms, Oct 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Adam Ruth

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
    <> wrote in comp.lang.c:

    > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:
    >
    > > On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    > > comp.lang.c:
    > >
    > >> Hello,
    > >>
    > >> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C? I enjoy
    > >> using them in my Python and Ada code and can see their usefulness in
    > >> C. I can envision an implementation where the naming would be based
    > >> upon a prototype and the parameter ordering could be worked out before
    > >> the linking phase (thus, no need to deal with changing a linker).
    > >>
    > >> Just curious. I've done some googling and can't find any references,
    > >> but it is a bit of an obscure topic.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for the info,
    > >>
    > >> Adam Ruth

    > >
    > > It has been discussed occasionally
    > >
    > > There has never been much support for it in the past,
    > > and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

    >
    > It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
    > necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
    > syntax error in C99. For example:
    >
    > int foo (int bar, int baz) {
    > ...
    >
    >
    > int main (void) {
    > ...
    > return foo (baz:15, bar:-23);
    > }
    >
    > With grammar changes:
    >
    > argument-expression-list:
    > argument-expression
    > argument-expression-list "," argument-expression
    >
    > argument-expression:
    > assignment-expression
    > identifier ":" assignment-expression
    >
    >
    > Whether it's particularly useful is another question. With
    > default arguments in the function definition, I think it
    > probably would be a nice to have.
    >
    > -Sheldon


    That's not the problem, that's easy.

    The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
    there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
    names.

    Consider even, in one source file:

    int func(int one, int two);

    /* stuff */

    int func(int two, int one)
    {
    /* ... */
    return some_thing;
    }

    /* still later */

    int otherfunc(void)
    {
    int x = /* whatever */;
    int y = /* something else */;

    int z = func(one:x, two:y);
    }

    Other than the named parameters in the call, the above is perfectly
    legal C89 and C99.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c /faq
     
    Jack Klein, Oct 30, 2003
    #5
  6. On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 07:28:47 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:

    > On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
    > <> wrote in comp.lang.c:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    >> > comp.lang.c:
    >> >
    >> >> Has there ever been any talk to adding named parameters to C?
    >> >
    >> > It has been discussed occasionally
    >> >
    >> > There has never been much support for it in the past,
    >> > and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.

    >>
    >> It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
    >> necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
    >> syntax error in C99.

    >
    > That's not the problem, that's easy.
    >
    > The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
    > there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
    > names.
    >
    > Consider even, in one source file:
    >
    > int func(int one, int two);
    >
    > /* stuff */
    >
    > int func(int two, int one)
    > {
    > /* ... */
    > return some_thing;
    > }
    >
    > /* still later */
    >
    > int otherfunc(void)
    > {
    > int x = /* whatever */;
    > int y = /* something else */;
    >
    > int z = func(one:x, two:y);
    > }
    >
    > Other than the named parameters in the call, the above is perfectly
    > legal C89 and C99.


    Well it's really only a problem if the same name is used for
    different parameters in different prototypes and not enough
    other named arguments are supplied for disambiguation (which
    is obviously impossible in your example).

    I can think of several solutions to the problem off the top of
    my head. The most comprehensive would require augmenting the syntax
    for parameter-declarations. The minimal would simply declare the use
    of named parameters in that situation to be undefined behavior.
    In between would be to associate the arguments with the actual
    parameters according to the "last" prototype seen.

    -Sheldon
     
    Sheldon Simms, Oct 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Adam Ruth

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <> Jack Klein <> writes:

    >On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:03:48 -0500, Sheldon Simms
    ><> wrote in comp.lang.c:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:04:43 +0000, Jack Klein wrote:
    >>
    >> > There has never been much support for it in the past,
    >> > and it would break an enormous amount of existing code.


    Bullshit: it won't break any single piece of existing code, because
    existing code doesn't use the (currently non-existing) feature.

    Furthermore, I have yet to see a piece of C code where a function
    declaration uses different parameter names than the function definition
    (if the function declaration uses parameter names at all).

    Any well written C program will contain exactly *one* declaration
    and one definition for each global function it defines. Local functions
    should have only the definition (except for the special case of
    coroutines). More than that would create maintenance overheads.

    >> It wouldn't necessarily break any existing code. It is just
    >> necessary to come up with a syntax for it that would be a
    >> syntax error in C99.


    Exactly!

    >That's not the problem, that's easy.
    >
    >The real problem lies in the untold number of existing programs where
    >there is more than one prototype for the same function, with different
    >names.


    Non-issue: it is the one prototype that is currently in scope that
    matters. The standard will simply have to specify which prototype is in
    scope, if multiple prototypes are encountered: the first or the last.
    Right now it doesn't matter, because the parameter names are ignored by
    the compiler, only their types are relevant.

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
     
    Dan Pop, Oct 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    Jack Klein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    > comp.lang.c:
    >
    > > Hello,
    > > [snip...]
    > > Adam Ruth

    >
    > It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
    > topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
    > and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
    > on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.
    >


    I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
    why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
    newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Adam Ruth <> scribbled the following:
    > Jack Klein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    >> comp.lang.c:
    >>
    >> > Hello,
    >> > [snip...]
    >> > Adam Ruth

    >>
    >> It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
    >> topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
    >> and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
    >> on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.


    > I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
    > why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
    > newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.


    What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    about the computer language C?
    Contrary to what people might think, comp.std.c is for the computer
    standard about C, not the C defined in that standard.

    It's really rather easy to figure out, once you grasp the idea that
    Usenet newsgroup names are parsed in a strict left-to-right fashion.

    comp: something about computers
    comp.lang: something about computer languages
    comp.lang.c: the computer language C

    comp: something about computers
    comp.std: something about computer standards
    comp.std.c: the computer standard about C

    ***THE WRONG WAY!***
    comp: something about computers
    comp..c: something about the computer language C
    comp.std.c: the C defined in the computer standard

    See how the middle row skips over one part of the name and the bottom
    row goes back to it? That's not how left-to-right parsing works.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
    "You will be given the plague."
    - Montgomery Burns
     
    Joona I Palaste, Oct 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Adam Ruth

    Kevin Bracey Guest

    In message <bnrljd$la1$>
    Joona I Palaste <> wrote:

    > Adam Ruth <> scribbled the following:
    > > Jack Klein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    > >> comp.lang.c:
    > >>
    > >> > Hello,
    > >> > [snip...]
    > >> > Adam Ruth
    > >>
    > >> It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
    > >> topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
    > >> and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
    > >> on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

    >
    > > I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
    > > why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
    > > newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

    >
    > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    > about the computer language C?


    No need to get sarky.

    > It's really rather easy to figure out, once you grasp the idea that
    > Usenet newsgroup names are parsed in a strict left-to-right fashion.
    >
    > comp: something about computers
    > comp.lang: something about computer languages
    > comp.lang.c: the computer language C


    I think the point is that in the absence of an official charter, there
    is an implicit ".iso-standard" at the end of "comp.lang.c", leaving anything
    even vaguely system-specific or only partially portable without a home.
    Most other comp.lang.* groups aren't that intolerant.

    I mean, for example, what newsgroup would you discuss some detail of the EDG
    compiler in? In the absence of a specific newsgroup, normal Usenet etiquette
    would suggest comp.lang.c to be the closest match. My point is that it's no
    use shouting "off-topic" at posters if you haven't got somewhere better for
    them to go. And I don't really believe that more general groups like
    "comp.programming" are better for something that is C-related.

    As for suggestions about things that could be added to C, surely it's
    reasonable to start the discussion in comp.lang.c? It's not as though the
    original poster was necessarily wanting to launch straight into the
    standardisation process.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of the regulars only come here to
    be unpleasant to newcomers and score pedantry points off of each other.
    More than the Usenet average, I mean. Couldn't we hive off all the pedantry
    to comp.lang.c.standard or something?

    --
    Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
    Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
    182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 503458
    Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
     
    Kevin Bracey, Oct 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Joona I Palaste wrote:

    > Adam Ruth <> scribbled the following:


    >>I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
    >>why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
    >>newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

    >
    >
    > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    > about the computer language C?


    You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
    the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.

    Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

    --
    Thomas.
     
    Thomas Stegen, Oct 30, 2003
    #11
  12. Thomas Stegen <> wrote:

    > Joona I Palaste wrote:
    >
    > > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    > > about the computer language C?

    >
    > You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
    > the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.
    >
    > Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.


    Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
    as has already been pointed out upthread.

    Regards
    --
    Irrwahn
    ()
     
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Oct 30, 2003
    #12
  13. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    Joona I Palaste <> wrote in message news:<bnrljd$la1$>...
    > Adam Ruth <> scribbled the following:
    > > Jack Klein <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >> On 29 Oct 2003 19:35:21 -0800, (Adam Ruth) wrote in
    > >> comp.lang.c:
    > >>
    > >> > Hello,
    > >> > [snip...]
    > >> > Adam Ruth
    > >>
    > >> It has been discussed occasionally, on the newsgroup where it is
    > >> topical, namely news:comp.std.c, which discusses the past, present,
    > >> and future ANSI/ISO/IEC standard for the language. It is not really
    > >> on-topic here, where the topic is the C language as it actually is.

    >
    > > I see the "this is off-topic" comment enough in this group to wonder
    > > why that hasn't been put in the FAQ. Perhaps the name of the
    > > newsgroup should change to be a bit more explicit about its topic.

    >
    > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    > about the computer language C?
    > Contrary to what people might think, comp.std.c is for the computer
    > standard about C, not the C defined in that standard.


    What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
    fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
    I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
    before I make a decision where to post?

    What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
    question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
    and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
    plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
    include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
    this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
    present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
    and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
    one place?

    The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
    is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
    polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
    characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
    would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
    discuss those issues much here.".

    Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
    newsgroup? I hope not.

    Adam Ruth
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 30, 2003
    #13
  14. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Thomas Stegen <> wrote:
    >
    > > Joona I Palaste wrote:
    > >
    > > > What, comp.lang.c isn't enough to tell you that this newsgroup is
    > > > about the computer language C?

    > >
    > > You might be interested to know that comp.lang.c is an exception to
    > > the rule. Maybe looking at some other language groups might be of help.
    > >
    > > Besides, I think the OP was perfectly on topic.

    >
    > Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
    > as has already been pointed out upthread.
    >
    > Regards


    Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Adam Ruth

    nrk Guest

    <snip>

    >
    > Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
    > newsgroup? I hope not.
    >

    Not at all. Discussions of topicality are always topical :)

    -nrk.
     
    nrk, Oct 31, 2003
    #15
  16. (Adam Ruth) wrote:

    > Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
    > > as has already been pointed out upthread.

    >
    > Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.


    Because:

    - questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
    - questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
    - questions about C plus non-standard/implementation-dependent
    extensions to the language are topical in newsgroups dedicated to
    these extensions/implementations. If there is no such group, there is
    still comp.programming.

    HTH
    Regards
    --
    Irrwahn
    ()
     
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Oct 31, 2003
    #16
  17. Adam Ruth

    pete Guest

    Adam Ruth wrote:

    > What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
    > fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
    > I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
    > before I make a decision where to post?
    >
    > What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
    > question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
    > and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
    > plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
    > include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
    > this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
    > present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
    > and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
    > one place?
    >
    > The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
    > is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
    > polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
    > characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
    > would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
    > discuss those issues much here.".
    >
    > Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
    > newsgroup? I hope not.


    It's not too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup.
    Topicality is on on topic everywhere always.
    This newsgroup is USENET first and about C second.

    You would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c,
    we don't really discuss those issues much here.

    The past and present versions are on topic here.
    The many non-standard versions and extensions are not.

    The people who will actually be making the changes
    to the future version, are on comp.std.c.
    They like to discuss ideas regarding future changes to the language.

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Oct 31, 2003
    #17
  18. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Adam Ruth) wrote:
    >
    > > Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > Not really. He should have posted his question to comp.std.c,
    > > > as has already been pointed out upthread.

    > >
    > > Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.

    >
    > Because:
    >
    > - questions about 'pure' standard (ISO) C are topical in comp.lang.c
    > - questions about the C (ISO) standard are topical in comp.std.c
    > - questions about C plus non-standard/implementation-dependent
    > extensions to the language are topical in newsgroups dedicated to
    > these extensions/implementations. If there is no such group, there is
    > still comp.programming.
    >
    > HTH
    > Regards


    Great non-answer, you already pointed this out.

    Let's look at the topic of the question:

    "Has there been talk of adding named parameters to C?"

    1) Not really a question about 'pure' standard (ISO) C.
    2) Not really a question about the C (ISO) standard.
    3) Not really a question about non-standard/implementation dependent
    extensions.

    So where does it go? Even if there was a non-standard implementation
    of this functionality, how would I know which newsgroup to ask it in,
    should it have been posted in all of them? What if that particular
    implentation doesn't have a newsgroup?

    This may come as a shock to you, but it's actually possible for a
    question to apply to more than one newsgroup.

    Technically, it's not a question about C so much as it is a question
    about a discussion about C. Should that go to comp.lang.discussion.c?
    It's possible take pedantry too far.
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 31, 2003
    #18
  19. Adam Ruth

    Adam Ruth Guest

    pete <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Adam Ruth wrote:
    >
    > > What is it about the name comp.lang.c that excludes my question? The
    > > fact that there's another newsgroup that *may* be more germaine? Must
    > > I fully grok in minute detail the "topic" of every newsgroup available
    > > before I make a decision where to post?
    > >
    > > What makes you think my question was about standards anyway? I ask a
    > > question "Has there ever been talk of adding named parameters to C?"
    > > and suddenly I'm shunted off to a standards newsgroup? My question is
    > > plainly about C in it's most generic sense, even though an answer may
    > > include reference to the standard. I think it's bogus to say that
    > > this group is about what C *is*, because there are many Cs: Past,
    > > present, and future. Not to mention the many non-standard versions
    > > and extensions. Where better to discuss all of these incarnations in
    > > one place?
    > >
    > > The response I got, "It is not really on-topic here, where the topic
    > > is the C language as it actually is." while not being rude wasn't very
    > > polite either. If my question really was off-topic, a
    > > characterization I dispute, then a polite response might be, "You
    > > would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c, we don't really
    > > discuss those issues much here.".
    > >
    > > Just my $2/100. Is it too off topic to discuss the topic of the
    > > newsgroup? I hope not.

    >
    > It's not too off topic to discuss the topic of the newsgroup.
    > Topicality is on on topic everywhere always.
    > This newsgroup is USENET first and about C second.
    >
    > You would probably get a better answer in comp.std.c,
    > we don't really discuss those issues much here.
    >
    > The past and present versions are on topic here.
    > The many non-standard versions and extensions are not.
    >
    > The people who will actually be making the changes
    > to the future version, are on comp.std.c.
    > They like to discuss ideas regarding future changes to the language.


    Thank you. Had I actually known there was a comp.std.c newsgroup I
    would have posted the question there (we can't all be intimately aware
    of the usenet structure). I would still have posted the question
    here, because my question really is bigger than the standard.

    The problem is, that to know the limits of the comp.lang.c newsgroup,
    it needs to be taken in context with all of the other newsgroups (it's
    not so much an issue of where does comp.lang.c end, but where does
    comp.std.c begin). And as I said before, there's nothing in the
    comp.lang.c name or in the FAQ that would lead someone to think that
    the question was off-topic.
     
    Adam Ruth, Oct 31, 2003
    #19
  20. On 30 Oct 2003 19:41:09 -0800, in comp.lang.c ,
    (Adam Ruth) wrote:

    >Irrwahn Grausewitz <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> Thomas Stegen <> wrote:

    >
    >Why? It wasn't a question about standard C, it was a question about C.


    You have the groups confused:

    CLC discusses Standard C, ie the language as standardised

    CSC discusses the Standard itself ie the actual document, and possible
    changes to it.



    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
     
    Mark McIntyre, Oct 31, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Magnus Lyck?
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    406
    Magnus Lyck?
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. John Leslie

    pass named parameters to python

    John Leslie, Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    563
    Duncan Booth
    Feb 8, 2005
  3. Bill Pursell

    Named parameters

    Bill Pursell, Jun 21, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,009
    Mark McIntyre
    Jun 24, 2006
  4. Adam Hartshorne

    "named parameters mechanism"

    Adam Hartshorne, Jan 23, 2006, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    384
    John Carson
    Jan 23, 2006
  5. Nick Keighley
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    410
    Marcus Kwok
    Jun 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page