From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 27/10/2025 12:22, bart wrote:   
   > On 27/10/2025 09:44, David Brown wrote:   
   >> On 26/10/2025 16:12, bart wrote:   
   >>> On 25/10/2025 16:18, David Brown wrote:   
   >>>> On 25/10/2025 14:51, bart wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> This is another matter. The CDECL docs talk about C and C++ type   
   >>>>> declarations being 'gibberish'.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What do you feel about that, and the *need* for such a substantial   
   >>>>> tool to help understand or write such declarations?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I would rather have put some effort into fixing the syntax so that   
   >>>>> such tools are not necessary!   
   >>>   
   >>>> And I'd love to hear your plan for "fixing" the syntax of C - noting   
   >>>> that changing the syntax of C means getting the C standards   
   >>>> committee to accept your suggestions, getting at least all major C   
   >>>> compilers to support them, and getting the millions of C programmers   
   >>>> to use them.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have posted such proposals in the past (probably before 2010).   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No, you have not.   
   >>   
   >> What you have proposed is a different way to write types in   
   >> declarations, in a different language.  That's fine if you are making   
   >> a different language.  (For the record, I like some of your   
   >> suggestions, and dislike others - my own choice for an "ideal" syntax   
   >> would be different from both your syntax and C's.)   
   >>   
   >> I asked you if you had a plan for /fixing/ the syntax of /C/.  You don't.   
   >>   
   >> As an analogy, suppose I invited you - as an architect and builder -   
   >> to see my house, and you said you didn't like the layout of the rooms,   
   >> the kitchen was too small, and you thought the cellar was pointless   
   >> complexity.  I ask you if you can give me a plan to fix it, and you   
   >> respond by telling me your own house is nicer.   
   >   
   > Where did I say anything about my own house?   
   >   
      
   In the analogy, that would your own language, and/or your own   
   declaration syntax that has nothing to do with C - both of which you   
   have harped on about repeatedly.  Sorry, I thought that was obvious.   
      
   > If my scheme was actually added and become popular, the old one could   
   > eventually be deprecated.   
      
   Is that your "plan" ?   
      
   >   
   > And yes it does 'fix' it by not requiring the use of tools like CDECL   
   > when writing new code: type-specs are already in LTR, more English-like   
   > form.   
      
   Most C programmers don't need cdecl.  The only people that do need it,   
   either have very little knowledge and experience of C, or are faced with   
   code written by sadists (unfortunately that is not as rare as it should   
   be).  Some others might occasionally find such a tool /useful/, but   
   finding it useful is not "needing".  And with your bizarre syntax as an   
   alternative, just the same would apply.   
      
   So you have set up a straw man, claimed to "fix" this imaginary problem,   
   while actually doing nothing of the sort.   
      
   And even if your syntax was as great as you think (IMHO it is nicer in   
   some ways, worse in others - and I think most C programmers would agree   
   on that while not being able to agree on which parts are nicer or   
   worse), you still haven't shown the slightest concept of your claimed   
   "plan" to implement it.   
      
   >  > - my own choice for an "ideal" syntax would be   
   >  > different from both your syntax and C's.)   
   >  >   
   >   
   > It sounds like it would also be different from CDECL. Perhaps you should   
   > contact the author to tell him what he's doing wrong!   
      
   Yes, my ideal would be different from the output of cdecl.  No, the   
   author is not doing something "wrong".  I live in a world where   
   programming languages are used by more than one person, and those people   
   can have different opinions.  I can have opinions on what syntax /I/   
   like, and equally accept that other people have different opinions.  You   
   like your choice of syntax - that's fine.  I like some of it, and   
   dislike other bits, but I certainly can't say /your/ preferences are   
   "wrong" !   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)