> [Tim, pushing the adoption of some C9X-like typedefs in Python's source] > > ... > > the-committee-wasn't-just-jerking-off-the-last-10-years<wink>-ly y'rs - > > tim > > [Ken Manheimer] > > (The obvious question is, where they doing those other things at the same > > time, or during breaks?) > > It varies by member. For example, the Reverend Tom MacDonald jerked off > non-stop the entire time (& I've copied him on this for confirmation). But > a surprising number of the members have never jerked off at all! You know me Tim. Ever since you showed me the pictures of mad dog and butcher vachon I can't stop. Interesting question but the committee never took a role call vote on that question. > Rev Tom, after 118 years serving on X3J11, do you think C9X is a good thing > or a bad thing? And do you still get off on it regardless? And what does > God think about C9X? If I have to boil C99 down to either good or bad, I'll pick good. It cleans up a lot of fuzzy words from C89, addresses some missing features that should be there (e.g., variable length arrays, long long, hex floating constants, // comments, <inttypes.h>, intmax_t, mixed declarations and code, designated initializers). There are features, though, that I wish were not there. The biggest being the complex type. This seems a tad ironic since I pushed for complex early on in the C99 process. I didn't realize that IEEE arithmetic made a complex type grow like the blob - even an imaginary type is there for those that want everything IEEE arithmetic has to offer. I18N was added (I think). I never could figure out if we made everybody that spoke their own language happy or not. It sure made C99 a lot bigger. Almost all of it in the library - though an implementation can support identifiers containing international characters. I don't like the following features: flexible array members, the number of new functions and operators required to support IEEE arithmetic, the LIA compatibility annex, and C99 style boolean support. I like the rest of it. However, no matter what I think, I don't see any vendors rushing to implement C99. Instead vendors are picking some C99 features and implementing those. So, perhaps the the answer to the question of whether C99 is good or bad is only interesting if someone actually implements it. Actually, you need several vendors to implement it. One reason C89 was so successful is that all vendors implemented it. I still like C. In my new job I'm using C++ all the time. I'm probably getting old and can't appreciate all this stuff C++ does for me under the covers, but I can never figure out which overloaded function or operator is actually instantiated by template such-n-such. With C, I can always see what's going on. So yes, I sill got off on it. I asked God what he thought about C99 and he said he didn't have an opinion on C99 cause he always uses python. Rev. Tom
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4