C function overloading?

[Mark McIntyre]

As far as I can tell, conforming compilers are equally free to set
fire to your hair and paint your toenails green.

absolutely. Which renders Stephen's remark even more meaningless...

 

[jacob navia]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:59:01 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "jacob navia"


And BTW all this arguing just persuades me not to use your C compiler, I
could never trust it to do what its supposed to. I'd rather trust MS which
is a terrible indictment I reckon...

Absolutely not.

Microsoft MSVC is a better compiler than what I can do myself.

It has better code generation, for starters, one of the fastest
code generators around, and a dedicated team of about thousand
people (peak).

If you see the C language as fixed, frozen and ready to go the
same path as the COBOL language you will find in MSVC the
compiler you want. The compiler is in the C89 stage and will
never incorporate anything new any more since Microsoft
has publicy stated that C99 will never be implemented.

In all respects, I think this is the compiler people like you
crave.

 

[Ralmin]

Of course this isn't in ISO C 89. But in 99, the C standard
accepted the "principle" that this construct *is* useful and provided a
SINGLE sqrt function without you having to remember 3 names for
each different function.

Six names, actually.

A glimpse from lcc-win32's <tgmath.h>?

....
double overload sqrt(double);
float overload sqrt(float);
long double overload sqrt(long double);
complex double overload sqrt(complex double);
complex float overload sqrt(complex float);
complex long double overload sqrt(complex long double);
....

 

[Mark McIntyre]

If you see the C language as fixed, frozen and ready to go the
same path as the COBOL language you will find in MSVC the
compiler you want.

Thats not what I said at all. What I said was "if you need C++ you know
where to find it". I stand by that. If I want a language offering
polymorphism, function overloading, templates etc, I use C++. When I want
something lean and mean, I use C.

The compiler is in the C89 stage and will
never incorporate anything new any more since Microsoft
has publicy stated that C99 will never be implemented.

MS also said that the internet had no future, and that Windows NT support
would cease in 2002. I seem to recall some slight change of tactics...

In all respects, I think this is the compiler people like you
crave.

You have no idea what I crave, but for what its worth, its not a compiler
and you can't get it in CLC....

 

[Friedrich Dominicus]

Thats not what I said at all. What I said was "if you need C++ you know
where to find it". I stand by that. If I want a language offering
polymorphism, function overloading, templates etc, I use C++. When I want
something lean and mean, I use C.

Having such things does not make a language fat.

Regards
Friedrich

 

[Michael Wojcik]

If you see the C language as fixed, frozen and ready to go the
same path as the COBOL language

What "path" is that? And what does it have to do with COBOL, which
is not "fixed" or "frozen", and in fact has a very active and
aggressive standardization process which has incorporated numerous
features in recent revisions, and continues to incorporate more?

C changes a lot more slowly than COBOL does. (This is not necessarily
an advantage either way.)

I suggest refraining from using COBOL as an example, if you're not
familiar with COBOL.

you will find in MSVC the compiler you want.

Unlikely to be generally true. MSVC has poor diagnostics - too few
warnings at level 3 and too many at level 4. It suffers from odd
implementation problems, such as its collection of conflicting C
runtime libraries. It targets only a few platforms and operating
systems.

There are reasons to use MSVC, but it's not the absolute best choice
for everyone who's not interested in C99. That claim is simply silly.