Apparently C peasants like myself are too low-born to engage directly with the type theory aristocracy, only subtweeting is appropriate ;)
— Andre Weissflog (@FlohOfWoe) January 5, 2024
This guy has a neat cross-platform C library https://github.com/floooh/sokol. The original tweeter is friends with a committee C++ CUTE TWINK who is ruining C by adding dumb features like breaking the auto keyword or nullptr.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
someone give me a quick rundown on this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
s and cute twinks ruin everything
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Just another reason why C99 will never be surpassed. It was made in a purer time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
what does any of this even mean
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://rdrama.net/h/slackernews/post/235098/c-committee-zoophile-cute-twink-subtweets/5694165#context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
why would
p
be anint**
? i would definitely expect it to be anint*
, withauto
resolving toint
because the RHS is clearly anint*
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The definition of
auto
as the type of the right hand side implies thatauto
isint*
impliesauto*
isint**
. This may not be the common reasoning, but it is a valid interpretation imo. Personally, I thinkauto*
should just be an error. Once you start pattern matching on types, you end up recreating the crazy c++ template type deduction algorithm that forms the basis of type inference in c++.Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'll agree with you there.
I still think it would be wild if
auto*
actually deduced toint**
since that's clearly an error (try dereferencing it twiceauto *x = &y; z = **x;
and watch the world burn) and quite confusing since it's so different fromauto&
.I would go further though and say that changing
auto
in C is stupid, it's not actually necessary in C because C doesn't have complicated types like C++. If you want to use fancy abstractions use C++, it's got excellent support for C interop,Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
To OP: NEVER, EVER THREATEN /r/DEUXRAMA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A SUBREDDIT THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Snapshots:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
https://github.com/floooh/sokol:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't get it. Why would p be a pointer to a pointer? It's referencing I, not referencing another pointer (q?) which references i
If it was int** you'd create a memory error
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context