This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
C99 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Compatibility with C++" needs more detailed explanation of the relationship between C99, TR1 and C++0x. Afog ( talk) 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it needs more explanation as to what exactly the features are. Something along the lines of what C++0x has but maybe shorter. -- Snaxe/fow ( talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
MinGW?
dmelliott 08:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmelliott ( talk • contribs)
I don't see the HP C compiler (for OpenVMS) listed. From what I've read it is likely in the "mostly" category, but I don't know what tests to run. One thing I found yesterday is that it allows declarations in a for statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.77.182 ( talk) 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The "previous version" is first mentioned as C89 then referred to as C90 194.237.142.7 ( talk) 12:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
there is a large number of things that are left open to implementation, for instance:
The following section was removed from the article
Boolean data type:
begin removed text
The
C99 version of C provides a built-in _Bool
data type. It is large enough to store the values 0
and 1
. When any scalar value is converted to _Bool
, the result is 0
if the value is 0
, otherwise 1
.
If the <
stdbool.h>
is #included
, the macros bool
, true
and false
can be used to refer to _Bool
, 1
and 0
, respectively:
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool b = false;
b = true;
}
These macros bool
, true
and false
are unrelated to the C++ boolean type, and their use in programs that mix C and C++ may lead to incompatibilities.
citation needed
end removed text
Is there a place for this text in the C99-related articles? Perhaps in the Wikibook? Thanks, and all the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
int
type, not _Bool
. — DAGwyn — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.12.36.83 (
talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)I don't really see why C++0x and the C++ Technical Report 1 are in an article about a C language specification. It seems to me they're completely unrelated. It makes some sense for C++0x to be in the C1X page for various reasons, but in the C99 page? That just seems a bit unusual to me. Especially given that there are links to C++ already in the article. 12.106.190.70 ( talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"intermingled declarations and code: variable declaration is no longer restricted to file scope or the start of a compound statement (block)"
Isn't the term "variable declaration" not contradictory with what's explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_(computer_programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.52.96 ( talk) 04:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As IEEE 754 support was a major feature of C99 (and C11) I have added an annotated example showing some of the major features supporting IEEE 754 (this example builds under gcc except they use a non-standard __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ instead of FLT_EVAL_METHOD (also gcc support for the IEEE 754 #pragmas is currently very buggy ). Brianbjparker ( talk) 04:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
C99. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
C99 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Compatibility with C++" needs more detailed explanation of the relationship between C99, TR1 and C++0x. Afog ( talk) 19:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it needs more explanation as to what exactly the features are. Something along the lines of what C++0x has but maybe shorter. -- Snaxe/fow ( talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
MinGW?
dmelliott 08:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmelliott ( talk • contribs)
I don't see the HP C compiler (for OpenVMS) listed. From what I've read it is likely in the "mostly" category, but I don't know what tests to run. One thing I found yesterday is that it allows declarations in a for statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.77.182 ( talk) 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The "previous version" is first mentioned as C89 then referred to as C90 194.237.142.7 ( talk) 12:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
there is a large number of things that are left open to implementation, for instance:
The following section was removed from the article
Boolean data type:
begin removed text
The
C99 version of C provides a built-in _Bool
data type. It is large enough to store the values 0
and 1
. When any scalar value is converted to _Bool
, the result is 0
if the value is 0
, otherwise 1
.
If the <
stdbool.h>
is #included
, the macros bool
, true
and false
can be used to refer to _Bool
, 1
and 0
, respectively:
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool b = false;
b = true;
}
These macros bool
, true
and false
are unrelated to the C++ boolean type, and their use in programs that mix C and C++ may lead to incompatibilities.
citation needed
end removed text
Is there a place for this text in the C99-related articles? Perhaps in the Wikibook? Thanks, and all the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
int
type, not _Bool
. — DAGwyn — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.12.36.83 (
talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)I don't really see why C++0x and the C++ Technical Report 1 are in an article about a C language specification. It seems to me they're completely unrelated. It makes some sense for C++0x to be in the C1X page for various reasons, but in the C99 page? That just seems a bit unusual to me. Especially given that there are links to C++ already in the article. 12.106.190.70 ( talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
"intermingled declarations and code: variable declaration is no longer restricted to file scope or the start of a compound statement (block)"
Isn't the term "variable declaration" not contradictory with what's explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_(computer_programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.233.52.96 ( talk) 04:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As IEEE 754 support was a major feature of C99 (and C11) I have added an annotated example showing some of the major features supporting IEEE 754 (this example builds under gcc except they use a non-standard __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ instead of FLT_EVAL_METHOD (also gcc support for the IEEE 754 #pragmas is currently very buggy ). Brianbjparker ( talk) 04:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
C99. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)