Re the new page you created - Clc:Short titles for FAQ questions. I tried to bring everything into a single document when creating Clc:Policies and Conventions - e.g. I moved the contents of Clc:Code Style Guidelines into it. It's easier to find things that way (a single link on the nav sidebar) and it encourages us to keep wording brief. I think everything's now been said at Clc:Policies and Conventions#thefaq and that there's probably no need for a new page. --Netocrat 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's still worthwhile to have it so that a single question linked from multiple pages isn't paraphrased differently. --Random832 07:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Bingo, I just clicked what you intended for that page. Clarifying sentence added. --Netocrat 08:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
(this makes three edits, if anyone thinks this should be changed pls post in talk)""
Did you miss that I'd already done that? --Netocrat 03:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You had? I'm confused now - I was using <, which is the inverted sense of >=, and what I reverted was a needless extra definition [if it's not defined, it's zero, right?] --Random832 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I agree that that was redundant, my comment applied to the same bit of code though so I had already "post[ed] in talk" that I thought that "this should be changed". --Netocrat 04:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, thoughtless comment... after looking properly I don't agree that it was redundant. If __STDC_VERSION__ is not defined, it expands to an empty token which leads to a preprocessing error (the left side of comparison is missing). --Netocrat 02:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Long overdue retrospective re-correction: what you wrote was correct, as was my initial agreement. It's pretty clearly stated in 6.10.1#3 that if within a #if directive a macro's not defined, then zero is substituted for it, and I can't recall exactly why I changed my mind on that. --Netocrat 08:46, 1 July 2006 (BST)
As for the google groups post linked... i understand the "may be set to something larger than 199901l on a c89 implementation" in general, but for this particular purpose, _we_ own the implementation namespace.
[personally, I think we should have a header where the implementation-specific stuff is defined and use a _RESTRICT macro to say 'restrict' or not depending on standard version] [unsigned comment also by Random832 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]
- That seems sensible. We could introduce "__nc" for "non-consistent" as a prefix for identifiers encapsulating inconsistencies between versions of the Standard. So that macro would be __nc_restrict or __NC_RESTRICT and identified on Inconsistent Standard Implementation Components as a counterpart to Non-Portable Standard Implementation Components. It would also reduce the size of string.h a lot. --Netocrat 04:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Even on comments on talk pages, or just main articles? Is the section identifier enough? Is it enough for talk page "threads" where there is one, even if not in other cases? --Random832 06:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)