>>6
Yeah, but they were designed by a guy from comp.lang.c.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 9:10
>>6
Without ability to specify stack size. Don't make me laugh. Nobody will use this shit. First - Microsoft will not support it. They never supported C99 to begin with. And we already have working wrappers that wrap Win Threads into superior pthread api.
So there is simply no reason to switch to thrd_LOOK_I_SAVED_2_LETTERS_IN_WORD_THREAD_I_AM_SO_COOL_GUYSs
>>8
The "thrd" prefix is to avoid collision with already existing code.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 14:24
>>10
It cannot avoid the collision with my raging cock.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 14:46
_Generic sounds like a nice feature. It's like a switch(typeof(x)). #define print(s,x) _Generic((x), \
char: putc(x, s), \
int: fprintf(s, "%d", x), \
float: fprintf(s, "%f", x), \
char *: fputs(x, s))
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 14:52
>>12
I just wish that true and false were defined to be ((_Bool) 1) and ((_Bool) 0) respectively, that way you could trigger a _Bool version of a function as well just using true and false. Normally this wouldn't be a problem but code conforming to the C11 standard doesn't allow you to redefine them.
>>13
Just noticed that the feature of redefining true and false is just marked as obsolescent, so you may do it, but the ability to do so might go away in a future standard.