On 11/13/22 14:33, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On 11/13/22 14:19, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>> But there are not only syntactical problems, because
>>> also the type of the parameter might become relevant
>>> and then you can get circular dependencies:
>>>
>>> void foo(char (*a)[sizeof *.b], char (*b)[sizeof *.a]);
>>
>> This seems to be a difficult stone in the road.
>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure what would the best way to fix it. One
>>> could specifiy that parameters referred to by
>>> the .identifer syntax must of some integer type and
>>> that the sub-expression .identifer is always
>>> converted to a 'size_t'.
>>
>> That makes sense, but then overnight some quite useful thing came to my mind 
>> that would not be possible with this limitation:
>>
>>
>> <https://software.codidact.com/posts/285946>
>>
>> char *
>> stpecpy(char dst[.end - .dst], char *src, char end[1])

Heh, I got an off-by-one error.  It should be dst[.end - .dst + 1], of course, 
and then the result of the whole expression would be 0, which is fine as size_t.

So, never mind.

>> {
>>      for (/* void */; dst <= end; dst++) {
>>          *dst = *src++;
>>          if (*dst == '\0')
>>              return dst;
>>      }
>>      /* Truncation detected */
>>      *end = '\0';
>>
>> #if !defined(NDEBUG)
>>      /* Consume the rest of the input string. */
>>      while (*src++) {};
>> #endif
>>
>>      return end + 1;
>> }

> 
> And I forgot to say it:  Default promotions rank high (probably the highest) in 
> my list of most hated features^Wbugs in C.  I wouldn't convert it to size_t, but 
> rather follow normal promotion rules.
> 
> Since you can use anything between INTMAX_MIN and UINTMAX_MAX for accessing an 
> array (which took me some time to understand), I'd also allow the same here. So, 
> the type of the expression between [] could perfectly be signed or unsigned.
> 
> So, you could use size_t for very high indices, or e.g. ptrdiff_t if you want to 
> allow negative numbers.  In the function above, since dst can be a pointer to 
> one-past-the-end (it represents a previous truncation; that's why the test 
> dst<=end), forcing a size_t conversion would disallow that syntax.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex
> 

-- 
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>