From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xmailer.gwdg.de (xmailer.gwdg.de [134.76.10.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8644385B19F for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 21:15:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B8644385B19F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gwdg.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gwdg.de Received: from excmbx-27.um.gwdg.de ([134.76.9.230] helo=email.gwdg.de) by mailer.gwdg.de with esmtp (GWDG Mailer) (envelope-from ) id 1p1Zqs-000N7H-NY; Sat, 03 Dec 2022 22:15:14 +0100 Received: from EXCMBX-29.um.gwdg.de (134.76.9.204) by EXCMBX-27.um.gwdg.de (134.76.9.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.16; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 22:15:14 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.221] (10.250.9.199) by EXCMBX-29.um.gwdg.de (134.76.9.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.16; Sat, 3 Dec 2022 22:15:10 +0100 Message-ID: <934a8af56874734dd113a1791ae1c9772c8956fc.camel@gwdg.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters From: Martin Uecker To: Alejandro Colomar , Jonathan Wakely , Joseph Myers , "Michael Matz" CC: Ingo Schwarze , JeanHeyd Meneide , , Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 22:15:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4f36c878-e7a5-761d-8f27-6cc38f5b1c95@gmail.com> References: <20220826210710.35237-1-alx.manpages@gmail.com> <75c352c-e8b5-90d0-5fae-7b211c647934@codesourcery.com> <68746776-87bf-80f9-8e3e-7392e8cef1bb@gmail.com> <77c3557f-4a62-3ede-4df4-4b2b78e265b1@codesourcery.com> <5ae032cd-7a5f-f72b-29ae-6ad7f418da8@codesourcery.com> <7931044a-b707-5a70-86c2-be298c35aa57@gmail.com> <792055f0-114d-d4bc-52f0-c242d1767c0b@gmail.com> <31e1cf34-b42f-24c5-2109-f8214c28af3e@gmail.com> <494309ce-c8ec-5219-f83e-b8dda5b9bcd1@gmail.com> <8aeb958eee2e084ea34d027878428a59a77b196d.camel@tugraz.at> <457bac3a-b83a-fe97-c5e1-f4efd2376821@gmail.com> <9fc8d4ea-607b-8a3d-490d-4b5662b677bc@gmail.com> <4f36c878-e7a5-761d-8f27-6cc38f5b1c95@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.250.9.199] X-ClientProxiedBy: excmbx-28.um.gwdg.de (134.76.9.201) To EXCMBX-29.um.gwdg.de (134.76.9.204) X-Virus-Scanned: (clean) by clamav X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Am Samstag, dem 03.12.2022 um 22:03 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar: ... > Since we've seen that using a '.' prefix seems to be problematic > because of lookahead, and recently Michael Matz proposed using a > different punctuator (he proposed '@') for differentiating parameters > from struct members, I think going  in that direction may be a good > idea. > > How about '$'? I don't see how the lookahead issue has anything to do with the choice of the symbol. Here, also with the context would fully disambiguate between other uses so I do not think there is any issue with using this syntax.  '$' is much more problematic as people use it in identifiers, '@' may cause confusion with objective C. Martin