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

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Wed, 7 Dec 2022 12:13:54 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-12-03)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-12-03)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-12-03)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com (Keith Thompson) (2022-12-06)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-12-06)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2022-12-07)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-12-07)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com (Keith Thompson) (2022-12-07)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-12-08)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-12-08)
Re: What attributes of a programming language simplify its use? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-12-12)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 12:13:54 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 22-12-001 22-12-003 22-12-004 22-12-007
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="95592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: types, design
Posted-Date: 07 Dec 2022 11:45:10 EST
In-Reply-To: 22-12-007

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


Post a followup to this message

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