Hacker News Reader

Which is why we want it to be standardized. It's already widely used on Linux and BSDs, the big compilers already implement the underlying functionality (because it's needed by C++), GCC and LLVM implement the exact same extension in an identical way, it does everything that people need, so let's make it work officially.

View on HN

Still there is a life beyond UNIX clones and gcc/clang.

The C compiler vendor for some embedded CPU with homegrown C compiler for their in-house OS also has a seat at ISO table.

While people here might not care, ISO does.

The proposals generally exist so that compiler vendors can comment on them and try proof-of-concept implementations if they're interested.

Indeed, and the fact that this is being proposed instead of adopting gcc/clang extensions, it is a proof that not all ISO members would be happy adopting that extension.

I agree. So go with the well-established widely used change, not the baroque and ill-defined proposal in the original post.

So use C++ already; that’s what it’s for.

Don’t go complaining that C++ is “too complicated” and then be hauling its complexity into C, because all you’ll end up with is a bloated schizophrenic mess that is neither a good C nor a good C++ [alternative].

Reply on news.ycombinator.com