Hi Joseph,

On 11/11/22 00:19, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
> 
>> One problem with WG14 papers is that people put in too much,
>> because the overhead is so high and the standard is not updated
>> very often.  It would be better to build such feature more
>> incrementally, which could be done more easily with a compiler
>> extension.  One could start supporting just [.x] but not more
>> complicated expressions.
> 
> Even a compiler extension requires the level of detail of specification
> that you get with a WG14 paper (and the level of work on finding bugs in
> that specification), to avoid the problem we've had before with too many
> features added in GCC 2.x days where a poorly defined feature is "whatever
> the compiler accepts".
> 
> If you use .x as the notation but don't limit it to [.x], you have a
> completely new ambiguity between ordinary identifiers and member names
> 
> struct s { int a; };
> void f(int a, int b[((struct s) { .a = 1 }).a]);
> 
> where it's newly ambiguous whether ".a = 1" is an assignment to the
> expression ".a" or a use of a designated initializer.
> 
> (I think that if you add any syntax for this, GNU VLA forward declarations
> are clearly to be preferred to inventing something new like [.x] which
> introduces its own problems.)

Yeah, I think limiting it to [.n] initially, and only moving forward, step by 
step, if it's perfectly clear that it's doable seems very reasonable.

Re: GNU VLA fwd decl:

This example is what I'm worried about:

         int foo(int a; int b[a], int a);
         int foo(int a, int b[a], int o);

Okay, parameters should have more readable names...  But still, it allows for a 
high chance of wtf moments.  However, I can think of a syntax very similar to 
GNU's, that would make it a bit better in terms of readability: not declaring 
the type in the fwd decl:


         int foo(a; int b[a], int a);
         int foo(int a, int b[a], int o);

Cheers,

Alex


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