Specifications for operator overloading

[jacob navia]

We had a very good discussion about this recently. Some people asked for
a full documentation. I have upload it to this URL:

http://www.q-software-solutions.de/~jacob/proposal.pdf

jacob

 

[Karl Heinze]

We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]

Dear Jacob,

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)


K. H.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Karl Heinze said:

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

No, it's not sacrilege to propose improvements to C. In fact, the C
community is so keen to see improvements to C that we have a whole
newsgroup for it, which is called comp.std.c. If you want to improve C,
that's the place to be, because that's where (some of) the ISO C movers
and shakers hang out. *This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and
C-as-it-was). *That* group discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a
difficult distinction to grasp, surely?

 

[Karl Heinze]

No, it's not sacrilege to propose improvements to C. In fact, the C
community is so keen to see improvements to C that we have a whole
newsgroup for it, which is called comp.std.c. If you want to improve C,
that's the place to be, because that's where (some of) the ISO C movers
and shakers hang out. *This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and
C-as-it-was). *That* group discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a
difficult distinction to grasp, surely?

Sounds reasonable. So poor Jacob just looms in the wrong group
(sometimes)?


K. H.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Karl Heinze said:

*This* group discusses C-as-it-is (and C-as-it-was). *That*
group [comp.std.c] discusses C-as-it-might-be. This is not a
difficult distinction to grasp, surely?

Sounds reasonable. So poor Jacob just looms in the wrong group
(sometimes)?

Well, that's one of his issues, yes. But please let's not go there again
right now - I've just eaten.

 

[Army1987]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:14:03 +0200, Karl Heinze wrote:

[snip]

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
before the late 2010s, if ever.

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

It is not sacrilege, it is OT. There's comp.std.c for that.

 

[jacob navia]

If C99 has been around for 8 years and it is very far from being
widely implemented, I don't expect any new C standard coming
before the late 2010s, if ever.

Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
C++.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
"The better C" will keep things as they are.

The committee has stated the same view that you say:

C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
doing C++.

C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
BETTER C!

jacob

 

[Rob Kendrick]

Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
to compile C.

What nonsense is this?

C99 has been ignored by gcc

Is this some attempt of sarcasm that I'm not catching due to your bad
colloquial English?

B.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 19:36:

Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
C++.

You keep claiming people have said that, but you are the only one who
posts that.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

Nope. Plenty of people are doing new developments in C.

Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
"The better C" will keep things as they are.

Nope, you are the one who keeps claiming people say that. It is not what
people actually say.

The committee has stated the same view that you say:

C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

No, they have said no new standard until whenever. That does not
necessarily mean that DRs will not be answered to resolve errors, or TCs
raised, or potentially even amendments.

I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now.

Only took me a minute to find some more, for instance http://www.htsoft.com/

All others are C++ compilers that happen
to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
doing C++.

No, it has failed for other reasons that have been discussed.

C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
BETTER C!

You know better than that. The gcc developers have definitely *not*
ignored C99 and nor have the glibc developers. They have not *finished*
implementing it, but then you had not finished last time you talked
about the status of your compiler either. A few others have actually
finished implementing C99.

Now will you stop claiming people have said things they have not said?
There are places where your discussions about extensions would be
topical as you well know having been pointed there several times.

 

[Eric Sosman]

Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
C++.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

In which case, WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? We're old fossils,
Jacob, set in our ways, unable to understand or appreciate your
enlightened vision of the brighter future that is to be. We
are beyond redemption, doomed to scrabble endlessly in the trash
middens of history. Leave us to our misery, please, without
adding to it by lecturing us daily about how miserable we are.
It's unseemly to make a racket at a funeral, so leave us to mourn
unmocked. Keep a sympathetic silence, or else GO AWAY!

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]

Dear Jacob,

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

Progress is good.

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

Nope. They're very receptive to such ideas. Thing is, this isn't the
group for them. This is the group for discussing C _as it is_. The group
for discussing C _as it could be_ - i.e. for proposing and evaluating
changes to the standard - is comp.std.c.

It is, if you will, the difference between genetics and breeding rabbits;
while rabbit breeding involves genetics, that doesn't mean discussing the
mating habits of our furry little friends belongs in a group devoted to
genetics - or vice-versa.

Doesn't mean people aren't interested in both, just means they want to keep
the right discussions in the right places.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Yes. C is frozen forever.

If C90 led to C99, no reason C99 can't lead to C2010. Nothing requires it
to be frozen.

But that doesn't matter since we have C++.

Might as well say it doesn't matter since we have VB. C++ isn't C.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

This explains the continued use of and interest in C, then.

Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
"The better C" will keep things as they are.

Really? How odd. I'm sure you'll back this up with some cites. Cites of
rejections of actual improvements, as opposed to, say, Malcolm's oddball
notions of tossing size_t and inflicting 64-bit ints on everyone, things
which demonstrably fail to improve anything for anyone other than to
perhaps make him happy.

The committee has stated the same view that you say:

C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

The C standard committee has said, explicitly, C won't change until 2019,
and by then C will be forgotten? Presumably, then, there *is* no more C
standard committee, as this means any further efforts on their part are
completely futile.

I think C is a language that needs small changes but is basically sound.

Indeed. It is basically sound - apart from some issues brought in with
C99, ones which apparently make it nigh-on impossible to make a conforming
implementation.

Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being developed now.

When did gnu stop working on theirs? Seems that as of July 18, 2007, they
were still actively working on it.

All others are
C++ compilers that happen to compile C.

"Happen to"? No. Even in cases where they are combined, they are
*designed* to compile C, they don't simply do so by happy accident. At
least, this is true of the Gnu compiler.

That is why C99 failed: the
compiler writers do not see any C market since all C programmers should
be doing C++.

I suspect it has more to do with the complexity of implementing C99.

C99 has been ignored by gcc

News to me. As of the first, I'm seeing C99-related discussions of gcc.

and Microsoft because both organizations
promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE BETTER C!

Er, no, it's not. It's C++, a different language. As a supposed compiler
writer, you should know better. Or was this some failed attempt at
sarcastic humour?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve).

Me too.

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity.

Offensive rubbish aside, the topic of the group /is/ ANSI/ISO C you
know.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Yes. C is frozen forever.

No. But then there's no point discussing with you because you're
apparently an egomaniac.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Keith Thompson]

Yes. C is frozen forever. But that doesn't matter since we have
C++.

All new developments are done in C++, and there is no way out.

Each time somebody tries to improve C, the proponents of
"The better C" will keep things as they are.

You keep spewing the same old nonsense.

Nobody here has said or implied that "C is frozen forever". We just
don't want to discuss changes to the language *in this newsgroup*.
Changes to C can be, and frequently are, discussed in comp.std.c. I
know you're aware of that newsgroup; you've posted there yourself.

People programming in C today need to have a place to discuss the C
language as it is currently defined and used. If I'm trying to
implement something in C today, discussions about proposed future
changes to the language don't do me any good. If I want to
participate in such discussions, I'll read comp.std.c. (In fact, I
do.)

We don't discuss improvements to the Linux kernel in this newsgroup,
and if anyone did so, they'd be asked to take it to a more appropriate
newsgroup. Does that mean that we think that the Linux kernel is
"frozen forever"? Of course not, it's simply not what we discuss
here.

Why do you think the comp.std.c newsgroup exists?

The committee has stated the same view that you say:

C is dead. No new developments, corrections, whatever
until 2019. Then, C will be well forgotten.

Please either prove that the committee, or any member of it, has said
that "C is dead", or retract this claim.

I am trying precisely to do the opposite.

Good for you. I applaud your efforts. You just need to learn where
and how to propose changes. For whatever reason (I won't speculate),
you seem to be unwilling and/or unable to learn this.

I think C is a language that needs small changes but is
basically sound. Lcc-win32 is the only *C* compiler being
developed now. All others are C++ compilers that happen
to compile C. That is why C99 failed: the compiler writers
do not see any C market since all C programmers should be
doing C++.

The GNU C compiler is a counterexample, though perhaps not a strong
one. gcc is a suite of compilers for multiple languages (C, C++,
Objective-C, Fortran, Ada, probably others). Each compiler has its
own separate front-end, and uses the shared gcc back-end.

I thought that both lcc (as distinct from lcc-win32) and Pelles C were
both strictly C compilers.

C99 has been ignored by gcc and Microsoft because both organizations
promote C++, that, as everybody should know by now, is THE
BETTER C!

There may be some truth to that (that C99 hasn't caught on because
programmers who want something beyond C90 have moved to C++). There's
also the fact that the C89 standard filled an urgent need to
standardize the language, whereas C99 merely introduced a new version
of an existing standard; probably a lot of programmers an implementers
felt that C89/C90 was good enough.

Personally, I'd like to see C99 catch on. Since I'm not an
implementer, I'm not in a position to do anything about it.

If you were to finish implementing the standard features required by
the C99 standard, you just might help the standard to be adopted more
widely. *After* that's happened, the community might be more
receptive to suggestions for new features beyond C99 (*if* you discuss
them in the right newsgroup, comp.std.c).

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Kelsey Bjarnason said:

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:36:49 +0200, jacob navia wrote:


When did gnu stop working on theirs? Seems that as of July 18, 2007,
they were still actively working on it.

They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever.
In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim that
lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C compiler
("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source code. It
lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites "static" and struct
initialisation), but then he's only been working on it since late
March, so that's understandable.

I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick
perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to
know what he's doing.

 

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason said:


They are not the only ones; Mr Navia's timing is as exquisite as ever.
In comp.programming today, over five hours before Mr Navia's claim that
lcc-win32 is the only C compiler being developed now, a new C compiler
("bgb", I think it's called) was released, with full source code. It
lacks one or two features as yet (the author cites "static" and struct
initialisation), but then he's only been working on it since late
March, so that's understandable.

I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet, but a (very) quick
perusal of some of the source code suggests that the author seems to
know what he's doing.

Mysterious mysterious. No URL, google gives nothing about "bgb",
Sourceforge knows nothing about "bgb").

URL Maybe?

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 23:33:

Mysterious mysterious.

Not really. You were told the group and the approximate time. That makes
it easy to find. Well, it only took me a few seconds.

No URL, google gives nothing about "bgb",
Sourceforge knows nothing about "bgb").

URL Maybe?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...15c506c7e7b/8a548d58ff1f605c#8a548d58ff1f605c

 

[CBFalconer]

We had a very good discussion about this recently. [...]

I think, I agree with you that C should develop (evolve). Of course
this would not be ANSI C and/or C99 any more, but so what? Then it
might just be C 2008 (or whatever).

Some guys in this NG seem to prefer to worship ANSI/ISO C (i.e. the
current standard) like a divine entity. (And since it's holy it's a
sacrilege to propose improvements, i.e. _change_. *sigh*)

No, they simply point out that such discussions belong in
comp.std.c. Not here.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia wrote, On 03/09/07 23:33:

Not really. You were told the group and the approximate time. That makes
it easy to find. Well, it only took me a few seconds.


http://groups.google.com/group/comp...15c506c7e7b/8a548d58ff1f605c#8a548d58ff1f605c

Thanks.
This is the a strange thing indeed. It is curious that someone
that insists in gcc -pedantic doesn't get bothered that a C
compiler accepts "string" and "list" as a keyword. But anyway
maybe I am wrong because the source code is a mix of another
project (a lisp nterpreter code?) and some C compiler stuff and
some other languages that I am not sure I can really
classify.

Anyway, thanks for the URL, and I am sure Mr Heathfield will tell
us more about this great compiler soon.

jacob