>> >> WG14 has reserved some identifiers for future extensions of the >> standard. E.g. those starting with mem_. Naturally, others then choose >> identifiers that do not conflict with this, such as explicit_bzero. But >> if that name is then used in the standard unchanged, it would mean that >> future extensions only use exactly those identifiers not reserved for >> future extensions. >> >> Philipp > > But if we would use reserved identifiers, we would be castigated for that. > > Don't you see your process does not work? > > -Otto >
This is not the only aspect broken about reserved identifiers. C2X will introduce thousands of new functions (nearly all of them for floating-point), many with names not previously reserved. C++ has their namespaces, but there is no such solution for C. I don't know how to solve this problem, and I don't think there will be a solution anytime soon. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised, if WG14 just goes with one of the existing names, not caring about reserved identifiers. But introducing a new name, from the reserved identifiers, for functionality, for which implementation experience already exists using a non-reserved name, still looks like a legitimate appoach to me. Philipp
