Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Please don't use [static n] ever. I want to remove it from the > standard, and I think I'm quite advanced in convincing the right people. > If you start using it, that could be negative to my efforts. > > The right way to specify an array of at least n is [n]. That's what GCC > implements. That's what we intend to standardize.
OK, since you say that the ISO C commitee will possibly revise this aspect of the language, I'll refrain from adding this to Gnulib (for now). > > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1046840/ > I think this post did a great disservice to C programmers. A journalist is not supposed to consider whether they are doing a service or disservice, before publishing an article. A journalist is only supposed to report factually the events and discussions that have taken place, and I have no indication that LWN's reporting was inaccurate. Thanks for your work on these proposals, by the way: - n3750, alx-0007r6 - add a malloc(3)-based sprintf(3) variant (similar to gnulib's xasprintf() and xvasprintf() functions), - n3749, alx-0004r4 - Adopt qualifier conversion rules from C++ (will help for execv, iconv), - n3611, alx-0018r1 - add streq() - n3524, alx-0003r3 - Add directives #def and #enddef (because I would love to be able to single-step through a macro expansion in gdb). Bruno
