Hi Joseph, On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 09:11:52PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > Every little bit adds up. Documentation is simpler if there is naming > > consistency. We have SYNOPSISes in the man pages, and they're up front, > > because they constitute an important part of the documentation. > > We also have a convention for future standard C interfaces to put the > length before the pointer so that a VLA parameter declaration can be used > that makes very clear the intent for how many elements the array has, > which seems much better for that purpose than relying on the name of a > parameter.
Just as a confirmation of what I already said: none of the arguments convince me. They seem mitigations to the damage that overloading the term length can do. I stand on my proposal of either __nelementsof__(), __countof__() (with no preference), any derivative of those, or almost anything that doesn't derive from "length" (well, I also veto "dimension", "extent", and "range", for different reasons, but anything else is fair game). If you want _Lengthof, please sed(1) it yourself and sign the patch below my signature. I don't think you (or myself) can convince me of changing my mind, so it's up to you to decide what you want to do. I think it would be good to have this in GCC 15, so if you're convinced of _Lengthof(), please go ahead already. I don't think delaying this further will change the mind of any of us. Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
