D has scope(exit){...} which is similar to constructs like defer {...}
Many things can be done in some form with macros and the C11 generic keyword if they have to be, but defering statements to run on scope exit is still elusive as something that can be relied upon.
Many programmers like myself have no problem with it whatsoever.
Change in a key infrastructural component like this is only destabilizing.
The ISO C people should have the decency to disband and work on their pet language research projects in private.
Adding simple abstractions which don't hide complexity in the underlying assembly is a huge productivity and correctness boost. Not that it matters anyways; modern optimizers are always going to do things that absolutely bend your brain.
Wouldn't that be nice if you could use a `scope(exit) {}` instead of accidentally missing two or three `goto cleanup_7;` which result in an RCE?
I would absolutely love a standards-compliant way to scope-guard sections of code. It'd make huge swaths of C code simpler; it's even in enough demand that Clang and GCC implement as their own extensions.
I can gladly provide a couple of examples.
Regarding C++:
- auto changed its meaning on C++11
- export templates were removed in C++11
- exception specifications were deprecated in C++11, removed in C++17 and might do a come back in C++23 with value based exceptions
- gets() got removed in C++11
- declspec and auto had a small semantic difference, settled in C++17
- initializer lists introduced in C++11 changed their auto deduction type in C++17
- the required implementation semantics for std::string in C++11 broke COW in compilers like GCC.
Just a small list, there are a couple more.
Also the draft C2x standard does away with K&R declarations, which will be another compatibility break.
Alright. Glad we cleared this whole thing up.
Nope; I will be writing in "it". What you obviously want is to be writing in something other than "it". You basically want to be able to write Rust, Go or D into a file that has a .c suffix and is passed through a preprocessor.
There's no evidence of this. There's just existing code. Ok. There's existing code in lots of other languages with different syntax (large and small differences). So what?
The latest video about Oden was a fantastic primer on QoL changes that should be standard, but there are people who always think what they learned is optimal. These are the same people who trivialize evidence to the contrary, in defense of their particular viewpoint.
The only guaranteed way your compiler won't break your code is if it's left alone.
Also, gratuitous changes to the compiler can break things that affect C90 operation. There is a risk.