C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C?

From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 12:07:32 +0300
On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 11:54, Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Am 6. Oktober 2023 10:39:23 MESZ schrieb Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 11:30, Jens Gustedt via Liaison
> > <liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > anything of the form
> > >
> > > identifier ( ballanced-token-sequence )
> > >
> > > would in principle be good for C, because it can be handled with a macro.
> > >
> > > For the identifiers, I think that keywording three or four letter codes is really a bad idea.
> >
> > "pre" and "post" are not keywords, they are grammatic parts of a
> > function declaration.
> well, well, whatever you like to call an identifier that has a fixed rĂ´le in the syntax, I think you understood me very well

It wasn't obvious to me whether the concern is about the feasibility
of using such words or a usability matter.
"pre" and "post" would indeed be highly problematic to try to make
actual full keywords, which is why they're not.

> > > This should be "precondition" or similar. People that argue that this is too long, should review the capacities of their IDE.
> > Why?
> because this also speaks to people who discover this on the fly. I know that there is a tendency to use obfuscation in our communities to show off, but we could perhaps keep it on a level that is quickly Comprensible ton people coming from other languages, for example.

Understood, but these are just abbreviations, not quite obfuscations,
and once learned, which doesn't seem to take a long time,
it ends up being an advantage that they're not as long as the full words are.

Received on 2023-10-06 09:07:45