«

On 10/04/12 11:05, fir wrote:
>
> I wrote on this before many times in this messages tree
>
> 1. local linking i see as a fix to the present c - it will break no line
>
> 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost 10 years (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I used to call it C2 as a 'codename'
>
> I Said here on about 4 improvements, some
> other I am thinking on are also:
>
> 1) realloc keyword
>
> int tab[1000];
>
> realloc tab[2000];
>
> - it will make a new dynamic memory paradigm
> (or almost) other than both GC and no
> malloc/free - like management - labels/handlers
> ale never disjoined with ram content here

This doesn't make a great deal of sense..

> 2) larger structures are passed (in and out) by
> hideen adress, return value is always on upper
> scope so there are no waste on passing
>
> struct float3 {float x,y,z};
>
> (float3) cross(float3 x, float3 y) //by adr not value
> {
> return { x.y * y.z - x.z * y.y,
> x.z * y.x - x.x * y.z,
> x.x * y.y - x.y * y.x} //thru addr fill to ram on upper scope
>
> //...
> }
>
> (important - this one is efficient
> and handy one, fills holes in present c)

What you are describing there is pass by reference and return value
optimisation (RVO), both present in C++.

> 3) couple of other ideas
>
> ex 'build in' types
> float3 or float4 float8 int4 etc related to sse/avx types, accelerated by sse operations on such
> types

This could probably be implemented in current C++. Maybe you are
working in the wrong language?

--
Ian Collins

On 2012-10-03, fir <> wrote:
> I wrote on this before many times in this messages tree
>
> 1. local linking i see as a fix to the present c - it will break no line

Well, not as far you're able to see.

Anyway, you should join the ISO C committee; you'd be in excellent company.

> 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost 10 years
> (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I used to call it C2 as
> a 'codename'

URL to code repository, or it didn't happen.

W dniu czwartek, 4 października 2012 00:35:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Kaz Kylheku napisał:
> On 2012-10-03, fir <> wrote:
>
> > I wrote on this before many times in this messages tree
>
> >
>
> > 1. local linking i see as a fix to the present c - it will break no line
>
>
>
> Well, not as far you're able to see.
>
>
>
> Anyway, you should join the ISO C committee; you'd be in excellent company.
>
>
>
> > 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost 10 years
>
> > (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I used to call it C2 as
>
> > a 'codename'
>
>
>
> URL to code repository, or it didn't happen.

Will make a compiler (codename 'fury'),
but makin such compiler is much easier than
workin out such improvements - I guarantee,

Compiler is a piece of cake compared to
thoutghts needed to find out such things

fir <> writes:
> W dniu środa, 3 października 2012 23:07:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał:
>> fir <> writes:
>> [...]
>> > The main benefit here is trashing out header files which i
>> > dislike.. (not to much will change but there should be a way to
>> > contain type definitions in .obj files etc)
>>
>> If you eliminate header files, you're making a radical change to the
>> C language, big enough that I wouldn't even call the new language
>> "C". It would break every non-trivial C program that's ever been
>> written. Even C++ didn't do that.
>>
>> If you add your "modules" feature to the language without eliminating
>> header files, than you have two separate mechanisms with overlapping
>> functionality, which will make learning the language that much
>> more difficult.
>>
>> You probably have some good ideas, but I don't think they can fit
>> into C. If you want to proceed with this, I suggest you invent
>> a new language. You can base it on C as much as you like, but I
>> advise against calling your new language "C". (The name "D" is
>> already taken; see <http://dlang.org/>. In fact, D may have some
>> of the features you like; for example, it uses `import std.stdio;`
>> rather than `#include <stdio.h>`.)
>>
>> I also advise you to gain a very strong understanding of C as it's
>> currently defined if you want to base a new language on it.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > void main()
>>
>> And in your own language, you can use "void main()" as much as you like.
>> In C, it's wrong. (That's not *quite* accurate, but it's close enough.)

Please take the time to clean up the extra blank lines that
Google Groups inserts so the rest of us don't have to. You can
copy-and-paste your article from the web form into a text editor, fix
it up, then copy-and-paste it back into the web form. (Or consider
using an interface other than the horribly broken Google Groups.)

I blame Google for this, but there are things Google user can do
to alleviate the damage.

> I wrote on this before many times in this messages tree
>
> 1. local linking i see as a fix to the present c - it will break no line
>
> 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost 10
> years (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I used to
> call it C2 as a 'codename'

Whatever you may have written many times before, I was responding
to one specific message, which proposed incompatible changes to C.

If you want to create a new language with such features, go ahead
(many others have done similar things). But comp.lang.c exists to
discuss C, not your new language.

> I Said here on about 4 improvements, some
> other I am thinking on are also:
[big snip]

None of which I was commenting on.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

fir <> writes:
> W dniu środa, 3 października 2012 23:07:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał:
>> advise against calling your new language "C". (The name "D" is
>> already taken; see <http://dlang.org/>. In fact, D may have some
>> of the features you like; for example, it uses `import std.stdio;`
>> rather than `#include <stdio.h>`.)
>
> in my version : as I said
>
> module main;
> reaches stdio;
>
> char* main(char* in)
> //(or close couse sizes and maybe other info should be sent too)
> {
>
> }

That's nice, but it's not C. There's a comp.lang.misc newsgroup
that might be a more appropriate place to discuss your new language.
(I don't know how active it is these days.)

>> I also advise you to gain a very strong understanding of C as it's
>> currently defined if you want to base a new language on it.
>>
> got deep understanding of the thing I call "Spirit Of C"

I don't doubt that you understand what *you call* the Spirit of C.
That doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of the C language
itself.

It's a minor point, but your insistence on writing "void main()", and
your lack of acknowledgement of my explanation of the reasons it's a bad
idea, does not imply a deep understanding of the currently defined C
language.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 03-Oct-12 17:42, fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 października 2012 00:35:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Kaz
> Kylheku napisał:
>> On 2012-10-03, fir <> wrote:
>>> 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost
>>> 10 years (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I
>>> used to call it C2 as a 'codename'
>>
>> URL to code repository, or it didn't happen.
>
> Will make a compiler (codename 'fury'), but makin such compiler is
> much easier than workin out such improvements - I guarantee,
>
> Compiler is a piece of cake compared to thoutghts needed to find out
> such things

If you think so, that is only because you've never actually written a
compiler, which makes me wonder what you've been _doing_ for the last
ten years, especially since you don't even realize that you've
reinvented namespaces--a concept that is a lot more than ten years old.

A compiler for C, which has been tweaked for ~40 years and now well
understood, is hard enough. A compiler for a language with the features
you propose (which is _not_ C, and is therefore off-topic here) will be
even harder.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 03-Oct-12 11:10, BartC wrote:
> "Kaz Kylheku" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On 2012-10-02, Stephen Sprunk <> wrote:
>>> Aside from a minor difference in syntax, they're the exact same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Since you refuse to recognize that you've reinvented namespaces,
>>> though, you've done a poor job of it.
>>
>> Refusing to recognize that prefixes on names are de-facto
>> namespaces is a sign of low intelligence (and therefore, needless
>> to say, unsuitability for working in language design).
>
> Building-in a permanent prefix into a name is not the same as having
> namespaces. Otherwise no-one would have bothered inventing them.

Having namespaces as a native language feature allows some syntactic
sugar, such as being able to leave the prefix off in some cases, but
that's about it.

If you look at how C++ namespaces are implemented in common ABIs,
they're just translated to prefixes by the name-mangling system--which
you can do just fine in C without needing a special language feature,
though in some cases a slight bit more typing is required.

> There is a considerable advantage to having a full 'name' made up of
> two or more parts. We all benefit from 'namespaces' as used in
> hierarchical file systems, and from having forenames and surnames!

Yet there are still collisions even with multi-part names, so it's not a
perfect solution.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 03-Oct-12 13:12, fir wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 2 października 2012 15:05:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Stephen
> Sprunk napisał:
>> On 29-Sep-12 01:46, fir wrote:
>>>> You're reinventing namespaces, but poorly.
>>>
>>> This is no matter of namespace. ... (One should not cure this by
>>> adding namespaces, this is no c spirit in such things, it would
>>> be bad)
>>
>> ... but reinventing namespaces is exactly what you've done.
>>
>> Here is your proposed syntax (from another post):
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> Here is the same thing done with C++ namespaces:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Aside from a minor difference in syntax, they're the exact same
>> thing.
>>
>> Since you refuse to recognize that you've reinvented namespaces,
>> though, you've done a poor job of it. In particular, the C++
>> solution (and the C prefix convention that does roughly the same
>> thing, which I provided an example of in another reply) does not
>> require any change to linkers or break billions of lines of
>> existing code, whereas your proposal does.
>
> The difference is huge -
>
> If you have namespaces and modules you have two 'beings' (modules and
> namespaces) In my proposal you have only modules - and you dont need
> namespaces - its much simpler

You are still missing the point. Your modules _are_ namespaces. There
are not two "beings"; there is one thing with two names: "modules" (what
you call it) and "namespaces" (what everyone else calls it).

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 2012-10-03, fir <> wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 4 października 2012 00:35:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Kaz Kylheku napisał:
>> > 2. other improvements makes a distinct language I work on almost 10 years
>>
>> > (maybe not such many but I forgot when it had begun) I used to call it C2 as
>>
>> > a 'codename'
>>
>>
>>
>> URL to code repository, or it didn't happen.
>
> Will make a compiler (codename 'fury'),
> but makin such compiler is much easier than
> workin out such improvements - I guarantee,
>
> Compiler is a piece of cake compared to
> thoutghts needed to find out such things

URL to piece-of-cake compiler, or it didn't happen.

W dniu czwartek, 4 października 2012 01:57:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Stephen Sprunk napisał:
> On 03-Oct-12 13:12, fir wrote:
>
> > If you have namespaces and modules you have two 'beings' (modules and
> > namespaces) In my proposal you have only modules - and you dont need
> > namespaces - its much simpler
>
>
>
> You are still missing the point. Your modules _are_ namespaces. There
> are not two "beings"; there is one thing with two names: "modules" (what
> you call it) and "namespaces" (what everyone else calls it).
>

this above is wrong - by module I mean as
I said .obj file and its corresponding
source file (or files if you would tear
it up on many files - but If one would
like to divide module code on pieces I
would reccomend to divide it on binary
level)

If the concept I mean would be namespace
thet namespuce then would be divided its
containing constents on binary level into
distinct binary modules, namespace is not
about it - module is module (related to
binary level code divisions0, namespace
is namespace (manage names in a way) -
this what I was talking was about modules