Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use?

On 12/6/22 6:56 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> writes:
>> IMO C basic syntax is a bad base. As long as declarations and
>> expressions can be distinguished only by the type of an identifier (type
>> name or variable name) it's not a good idea to add new keywords that can
>> be confused with variable or type names.


Nobody seems to disagree with my opinion?




> Instead weird constructs like
>> "long long" for int64_t have been introduced, while "int int" stays
>> equivalent to "int".
>
> long long and int64_t are not the same (though int64_t may be the same
> type as long long in a given implementation). long long is *at least* 64
> bits. int64_t is *exactly* 64 bits, and must have a 2's-complement
> representation and no padding bits.


You are right, my sloppy wording was not appropriate in this NG :-(


> "int int" is a syntax error.


I could not find in the (older) C++ grammar why "int int" should be a
*syntax* error. Aren't both "int" and "long" simple-type-specifier's
which can occur multiple times in a decl-specifier-seq?


It looks to me like additional rules apply which decide that
      "long int"
      "long long int"
      "long int long" //what's that?
are all valid while
      "long int long int"
throws an "two or more data types..." error.


In former times it was much easier to decide with a single basic type id
(int...) and type modifiers (long...).


DoDi

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.