OCaml at Bloomberg

Re:OCaml at Bloomberg by jstimpfle on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @05:34AM (#28286663)

As always, good trolling pjmlp.

There was a proposal of a some lambda thing. From looking briefly over it, it seemed too complicated to me. I hope it doesn't get included.

If you look on the Wikipedia page for C2X, there is no mention of lambda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C2x .

Instead, pretty much all that is listed there are small and useful cleanups of the standard:

    - two's complemement is required, which I assume will remove some UBs
    - Labels can appear before declarations and at the end of compound statements
    - Removal of K&R function definitions
    - Unnamed parameters in function definitions

In fact those are some of the major complaints people are having with the language currently.

As well as some very useful features that are small and self-contained

    - A feature for binary resource inclusion in the preprocessor (#embed)
    - Binary literals such as 0b10101010
    - _Static_assert

I don't know the process and the people well enough to say I agree with everything WG 14 does, but I'll say that's how you improve quality of life while staying humble. The changes I see here, no chance of having to fix some grand idea over decades, like with RAII which requires N new type specifiers and constructors, move semantics...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OCaml at Bloomberg by pjmlp on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @08:16AM (#28287786)

Making my best since golden comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c.moderated days.

Wikipedia isn't always up to date, ISO mailings is where the stuff is.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/projects

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/wg14_document_log...

Happy reading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OCaml at Bloomberg by jstimpfle on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @11:03AM (#28289755)

Following through and skimming your links, I cannot find a lot to back up your claims. The latest discussion of lambda in C that I can find is the following document: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1483.htm

At the very bottom:

> Summary

> The C proposal N1451 provides a new syntax for lambda expressions. While details of the proposal are unclear, it is clear that there are both significant commonalities and significant differences [NOTE: document's title is "Comparing Lambda in C Proposal N1451 and C++ FCD N3092"]. The syntax is in many places a shallow inconsistency. More deeply, the model of reference capture seems inherently incompatible. The N1451 model seems more appropriate to Smalltalk, from whence it originated, than to C/C++. If the C commitee chooses to modify the proposal to be more inline with C++, then syntactic changes to both C and C++ would provide considerable value to working programmers, who often fail to appreciate any differences in approach.

In summary, there seems to be one guy who has invested effort in a proposal, and all I can find is at best mixed reactions to this proposal, inside and outside of WG14.

While the stuff I listed in above comment is all simple or even simplifying the language, and that's what's already integrated in the working draft in the standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OCaml at Bloomberg by pjmlp on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @04:04PM (#28294214)

There are still a couple of years until everything is voted in.

That is how ISO works, one guy writes a paper and then has to champion it.

If you are in an hurry, you can use clang's block extensions, or GCC's version thereof (nested functions).

In any case, C23 isn't K&R C.

[ Parent | on HN ]