C99是最终的C吗？ [英] Is C99 the final C?

问题描述

我只是在考虑这个问题，特别想知道C规范目前缺少的是否有任何

功能，以及未来可能包含的b
标准化。


当然，我只讲C语言中的特征;像

这样的东西，虽然是一个不错的功能，但不属于C.

能够#define #define的东西会非常方便，

但是，例如：


#define DECLARE_FOO（bar）#define FOO_bar_SOMETHING \

#define FOO_bar_SOMETHING_ELSE


我不确定cpp的功能是否甚至包含在C

标准中（并且GCC肯定采取了相当不规范的方法

关于某些令牌扩展和诸如此类的东西），但这是我看到的一个区域

的改进。


我也希望看到一些东西沿着C ++模板的行，

，除非没有C ++人员决定转到（并且没有OOP）的真正的kludgy实现。


....迈克暂停了一千个声音*


模板在常用数据方面节省了大量时间
st因为它们完全是在编译时实现的，所以根据他们的定义，不包括
包括OOP（尽管它们非常适合于它们） ，我认为他们将是一个很好的补充和C的精神。


你的想法？我肯定会有一些闷闷不乐，但我已经准备好了
准备了8）


-

迈克的专利阻止名单;用gcc编译：


i = 0; o（a）{printf（"％u"，i>> 8 * a& 255）; if（a）{printf（ "。"）; o（ - a）;}}

main（）{do {o（3）; puts（""）;} while（++ i） ;}

I was just thinking about this, specifically wondering if there''s any
features that the C specification currently lacks, and which may be
included in some future standardization.

Of course, I speak only of features in the spirit of C; something like
object-orientation, though a nice feature, does not belong in C.
Something like being able to #define a #define would be very handy,
though, e.g:

#define DECLARE_FOO(bar) #define FOO_bar_SOMETHING \
#define FOO_bar_SOMETHING_ELSE

I''m not sure whether the features of cpp are even included in the C
standard though (and GCC has definitely taken quite a nonstandard approach
with regards to certain token expansions and whatnot), but that''s one area
of improvement I see.

I would also like to see something along the lines of C++ templating,
except without the really kludgy implementation that the C++ folks decided
to go to ( and without the OOP ).

.... Mike pauses for the sound of a thousand *plonks*

Templates save a lot of time when it comes to commonly-used data
structures, and as they are entirely implemented at compile-time and don''t
include, by their definition, OOP (although they can be well suited to
it), I think they would be a nice addition and in the spirit of C.

Your thoughts? I''m sure there''s some vitriol coming my way but I''m
prepared 8)

--
Mike''s Patented Blocklist; compile with gcc:

i=0;o(a){printf("%u",i>>8*a&255);if(a){printf(".") ;o(--a);}}
main(){do{o(3);puts("");}while(++i);}

推荐答案

Michael B.写道：

Michael B. wrote:

我只是想着这个，特别想知道C规范目前缺少哪些功能，以及未来某些标准化中可能包含的功能。

I was just thinking about this, specifically wondering if there''s any
features that the C specification currently lacks, and which may be
included in some future standardization.

当然有。你能想象人们会/永远/停止

修理东西只是因为它们没有破坏吗？

-

Morris Dovey

美国爱荷华州西得梅因

C链接 http://www.iedu.com/c

读我的嘴唇：苹果离树不远。

Of course there are. Can you imagine that people will /ever/ stop
fixing things just because they ain''t broke?
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn''t fall far from the tree.

Morris Dovey写道：

Morris Dovey wrote:

Michael B.写道：

Michael B. wrote:

我只是考虑到这一点，特别想知道C规范目前缺少哪些功能，哪些可能包含在未来的标准化中。

I was just thinking about this, specifically wondering if there''s any
features that the C specification currently lacks, and which may be
included in some future standardization.

当然有。你能想象人们会因为他们没有破坏而/永远/停止修理东西吗？

Of course there are. Can you imagine that people will /ever/ stop fixing
things just because they ain''t broke?

几年前有一句话，我相信由

原始Fortran编译器的作者之一，虽然很难验证来源。

类似于：


我不知道2000年的语言会是什么样子，但它将被称为Fortran。
将被称为Fortran。 （这是来自记忆，希望它很接近。）


现在，我相信，现在有一个Fortran 2003，它几乎没有什么共同点。

1954年的Fortran左右。当它是50岁时，C会是什么样子？


我可能更喜欢新语言而不是现有语言的扩展。


- glen

There was a quote some years ago, I believe by one of the authors of the
original Fortran compiler, though it is hard to verify the source.
Something like:

"I don''t know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but it
will be called Fortran." (That is from memory, hopefully it is close.)

There is now, I believe, a Fortran 2003 that has very little in common
with the Fortran of 1954 or so. What will C look like when it is 50
years old?

I might prefer a new language rather than an extension of an existing one.

-- glen

在comp.lang.ci中的

读取：

Michael B.写道：

Michael B. wrote:

我只是想着这个，特别想知道C规范是否有任何
功能目前缺乏，可能会在未来的某些标准化中包含。

I was just thinking about this, specifically wondering if there''s any
features that the C specification currently lacks, and which may be
included in some future standardization.

当然有。你能想象人们会因为他们没有破坏而/永远/停止修理东西吗？

Of course there are. Can you imagine that people will /ever/ stop
fixing things just because they ain''t broke?

是的。 （比照pl / i标准）


-

签名

yes. (cf the pl/i standard)

--
a signature

这篇关于C99是最终的C吗？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！