On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:12:39PM GMT, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:07:04PM GMT, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > [Moved from gcc-patches@ to gcc@] > > > > Hi JeanHeyd, наб, > > > > I see you (JeanHeyd) are developing yet another survey about the names > > for this new operator. Let me ask you to be clear about my fear of > > ambiguity with null-terminated strings which are stored within arrays > > and the length of both entities differ, usually by exactly one, being a > > potential cause of a confusion that might result in buffer overflows, or > > other kinds of errors (and it would be interesting to mention that I've > > presented a link to an actual bug of that class in shadow-utils, which I > > fixed recently). I would also like the survey to be presented to > > programmers that like programming in C; I would refuse to acknowledge > > the results of any survey that is presented to C++ or rust programmers > > who acknowledge not wanting to program in C ever again. They have a > > clear conflict of interest. If this survey is conducted, it should > > include the gcc and glibc communities, and the resons why each name is > > It would also be interesting to hear the opinion of people from the BSDs > and Unix/Plan9. > > > considered good and bad should be clearly stated alongside the options, > > in a detailed rationale. > > > > For extentof(), my only caveat is that one might want to add a 2-args > > operator (or macro) that has the C++ semantics, that is, allowing you to > > specify the dimension of the array that you want. I don't see why it > > would be useful, but didn't want to preclude it either. But other than > > that, I'm okay with that name. > > > > Another thing is that I'd prefer it to be based on email, or something > > that doesn't impose a barrier to those who don't have an account in a > > given platform, and don't want to create it.
Another thing I think would be interesting is to allow to choose a
matrix of options:
| love | LGTM | could live with it | dislike | hate | No opinion
lenof
lengthof
countof
nelemsof
nelementsof
extentof
Where multiple ones can be voted by the same person at the same level of
likeness.
> >
> > Thanks for your interest in this operator!
> >
> > Have a lovely day!
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > P.S.: наб, you asked why not array_size(). I agree with the defenders
> > of lengthof that size should not be overloaded to mean both the number
> > of bytes and the number of elements of an object (although I'm closer to
> > accepting overloading the term "size" than overloading the term
> > "length", since size at least doesn't promote off-by-one errors). Also,
> > I have a macro sizeof_array() which I define as
> >
> > #define sizeof_array(a) (countof(a) * sizeof((a)[0]))
> >
> > It would be very weird and confusing to have
> >
> > #define sizeof_array(a) (array_size(a) * sizeof((a)[0]))
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:10:56AM GMT, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > Hi Joseph,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 08:44:15PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > > I don't see the use of pedwarn_c23 and associated tests (error with
> > > > -std=c23 -pedantic-errors, warning with -std=c23 -pedantic, no
> > > > diagnostic
> > > > with -std=c23 -pedantic-errors -Wno-c23-c2y-compat, no diagnostic with
> > > > -std=c2y -pedantic-errors, warning with -std=c2y -pedantic-errors
> > > > -Wc23-c2y-compat), previously discussed in comments on v13, that would
> > > > be
> > > > appropriate before considering this for inclusion with an appropriate
> > > > substitution of names.
> > >
> > > I removed it because I renamed it to __countof__, which is a GNU
> > > extension, and thus should not be warned by -Wpedantic. As part of my
> > > opposition to _Lengthof, I will not provide you with that part, which
> > > would amount to basically giving you _Lengthof but not. As part of the
> > > editorialising process, you'll also have to add pedantic warnings, if
> > > that's what you want to do. Again, I will earnestly ask to once more to
> > > consider __countof__, but it's up to you.
> > >
> > > Have a lovely night!
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > --
> > > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
>
>
>
> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
