On Sat, Apr 04, 2026 at 07:07:15PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 03/04/2026 à 23:51, Andrew Bower a écrit :
> > Hi Rainer,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 11:17:48AM +0100, Rainer Weikusat via Dng wrote:
> > > The advantage of omitting the name when the parameter isn't meant to be
> > > used is that it avoids a warning about an unused parameter. But I think
> > > this should support C99 and hence, will change it accordingly.
> > Why not stick with the new C standard as the baseline for a new project?
> > It's rare enough one gets a chance to do this and C23 has some solid
> > improvements!
> >
> > gcc-14/13 in Excalibur support most of C23 and gcc-12/11 in Daedalus
> > support a subset including N2480 "unnamed parameters in function
> > definitions".
>
>     The problem with latest improvements of the language is that the proper
> compilers aren't widespread enough.

It depends where the author expects their wares to end up. If the
objective were to be in the next round of Linux distro releases then I
think it would be a shame to trade off the benefits that you get from
being assured access to gcc-16/gcc-15, as you would be in Debian and
derivatives, for example. So I was just prompting in case that
perspective hadn't been considered.