New language features?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Joe, Nov 29, 2007.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    It seems to me that C could be improved by adding a few more features
    to the standard. I read some of the recent thread "Criticism of the C
    programming language ??????" which shows a lot of opinions for and
    against adding language features.

    What makes sense to me is to incorporate features that are commonly
    available as compiler extensions (i.e. anonymous unions) into the
    standard, because they are well-tested, and obviously have many actual
    users interested. It also would not put a big burden on compiler
    developers. Maybe the formal standards process is just too complicated
    to allow the addition of a small number of minor additions? Maybe it
    would be useful to have a well-defined, standardized set of language
    extensions to make it easier to write portable code? Or, maybe it is
    too hard to get everyone to agree, and I should be thankful at the
    current level of C standardization?
     
    Joe, Nov 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe

    Eric Sosman Guest

    Joe wrote:
    > It seems to me that C could be improved by adding a few more features
    > to the standard. [...]


    It seems that way to everybody else in the world, too.
    That way, me lad, lies PL/1.

    --
    Eric Sosman
    lid
     
    Eric Sosman, Nov 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe

    SM Ryan Guest

    Joe <> wrote:

    # would be useful to have a well-defined, standardized set of language
    # extensions to make it easier to write portable code? Or, maybe it is
    # too hard to get everyone to agree, and I should be thankful at the
    # current level of C standardization?

    (1) gcc source is available. You can modify it (or sponsor someone
    to modify it) to incorporate the changes you want. You can then
    release those changes to the gcc community and try to get them
    incorporated in the compiler releases. That gets you leverage to
    get ANSI to include them.

    (2) Write a preprocessor to convert the language you want to the
    language you have to use.

    (3) Write a new language.

    --
    SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
    There are subtler ways of badgering a witness.
     
    SM Ryan, Nov 30, 2007
    #3
  4. Joe

    cr88192 Guest

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It seems to me that C could be improved by adding a few more features
    > to the standard. I read some of the recent thread "Criticism of the C
    > programming language ??????" which shows a lot of opinions for and
    > against adding language features.
    >
    > What makes sense to me is to incorporate features that are commonly
    > available as compiler extensions (i.e. anonymous unions) into the
    > standard, because they are well-tested, and obviously have many actual
    > users interested. It also would not put a big burden on compiler
    > developers. Maybe the formal standards process is just too complicated
    > to allow the addition of a small number of minor additions? Maybe it
    > would be useful to have a well-defined, standardized set of language
    > extensions to make it easier to write portable code? Or, maybe it is
    > too hard to get everyone to agree, and I should be thankful at the
    > current level of C standardization?


    here is the problem:
    there are no standards;
    or, there is some long and drawn out process for making them.

    now, a system for informal compiler extensions would be useful, especially
    if some compilers could agree on whether or not to implement them.

    a tradeoff could be possible, for example, something similar to the
    old-style IETF RFC system, or similar...

    Scheme has something similar (the SRFI system).
    http://srfi.schemers.org/

    one could look here for a possible organizational idea.


    but, then is the question:
    who would organize such a system?...;
    and, how much would it actually matter?...;
    ....

    unless some more major players in the compiler field were involved (such as
    GCC, ...), this would be, at most, largely restricted to minor and hobbyist
    implementations (my case is a case of hobbyism...).

    this may not be all bad though, as even some semblance of standardization is
    probably better than the existing practice of "word of mouth" compiler
    extensions...

    or, maybe similar exists already?...
    I don't know...
     
    cr88192, Nov 30, 2007
    #4
    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. Omnicore Software
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    446
    Tim Tyler
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    281
  3. Language features

    , Nov 2, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    587
  4. Jonathan Mcdougall
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    515
    Kaz Kylheku
    Nov 3, 2005
  5. BillJosephson
    Replies:
    148
    Views:
    2,697
    peter koch
    Jan 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page