Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Wait, they added a new operator and didn't fix that parsing stupidity by always requiring parentheses?by inigyou
- I assume that there would be a zillion of legacy C source files that would be broken by such a change.by adrian_b
- I feel like what you struggle with is expression parsing, not sizeof itself?by high_na_euv
- It's a unary operator, kind of like ~ or !, which can apply to parenthesis (), until it meets a type, then the parenthesis are mandatory:
It's a weird double rule to parse, but even worse, the strongest binding precedence typically doesn't like an alpha identifier at that point in the recursive descent, so you get weird rules like:int x; sizeof x; // okay sizeof (x); // okay sizeof int; // not okay sizeof (int); // okay
Something like @ would've been a good pick for sizeof.read_prefix(): is peak() '!': ... is peak() '~": ... is alpha(peak()) maybe alpha is sizeof? wait, it wasn't sizeof? it was an identifier? long rewind is peak() '+': ...\ramble on
(actually, better yet, it should've been used instead of & for taking the address). Imagine:
\ramble offint x; int* p = @x;by glouwbug - Ive actually toyed with the idea of having @ as a pointer dereference. It seems to make sense: you want to know what is at the address stored in p.by atiedebee
- > (everything here also applies to c2y's newly introduced _Countof)
Stop the press, they're adding what? So I don't have to keep adding #define count_of(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(*arr)) to every codebase and living with its failure modes?
I'm really loving C's character arc at the moment, where they keep going back to fix old problems instead of piling everything and the kitchen sink into the language.
by wren6991 - Yeah, despite puritanical hand-wringing over C23, I do like both the discipline and the selectivity with WG14 has shows (and I say this as a card-carrying C++ hater).
I do wish they will start looking into proper arrays since there is already a syntax for this can can be augmented semantically:
int func (int arg[static 5])by HexDecOctBin - If only they actually fixed arrays and strings properly.
C23 and C2y have plenty of kitchen sink features.
by pjmlp - > I'm really loving C's character arc at the moment, where they keep going back to fix old problems
Valid, but it does seem a bit Stockholm Syndrome to have this much rejoicing that your language added a builtin for getting the length of an array in 2026.
by zbentley