Hi Branden, > Date: 2026-09-14 13:37:50-0500 > From: "G. Branden Robinson" > > At 2026-09-14T10:19:13-0700, Mark Harris wrote: > > Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > Anyway N3207 (spec mentioned in d2c2db883) is something I'll need > > > > to get used to :). > > > > > > There's a more recent paper with a slightly better spec (also > > > compatible with GCC): N3681. > > > > > > > There is an even more recent paper addressing this subject, N3923 > > , and the > > outcome from the last WG14 meeting was strong direction to proceed > > along these lines. Hopefully this much more human-readable approach > > will prevail and we can do away with these confusing forward > > declarations in parameter lists. > > This sort of naked triumphalism when reporting on working group > deliberations would be better replaced by a citation of the minutes of > the WG14 meeting in question. Since you didn't do that, I will, and > further will quote the relevant portion. > > At this point, the meeting minutes for summer 2026 are available in > draft form only. > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3953.htm > > ---snip--- > Na/, Forward Parameter References through Retroactive Scoping, v2 > (Updates N3830) [N3923] > > Celeste: I like this. But I am worried that "constraint" is too strong. > Unrelated libraries can collide with each other. I would recommended > practice be strong enough. > > Bhakta: I like the changes. I also like that there is no new syntax for > it. Some compilers still have issues with far-enough look-ahead; that is > my only concern. > > Gustedt: I am sympathetic to this approach; we need a solution. I am > still baffled that we did not get any other solutions. I am scared of > the complexity. I would still prefer forward declarations. > > Celeste: This is similar for pre-C90 where you had to hook up with a > declaration later. > > Adams: How does this integrate with the type system? Is it separated? > > Na: Your question is about the attributes, right? This is not about > attributes. We have other proposals about intended attributes. What is > your proposal number? > > Adams: My example is for the noreturn attribute. What is the current > status for the C type system? > > Na: This proposal is for core language array size. > > Bazley: SDCC already supports forward parameter declarations, but is > more limited than GCC. I wonder if this is an over-engineered solution > for a problem that does not need to exist at all? > > Celeste: Is this ready for the Wording Group? > > Gustedt: No, there are too many unanswered questions. > > Columnar: I strongly prefer forward declarations. I like this proposal > more. Given that small implementors cannot implement this, I am not > comfortable accepting this. This lacks some context. "I like this proposal more [compared to the previous version of it]." > Uecker: The SlimCC developer and another compiler developer wrote in a > discussion about general features that they are worried about parameters > for active declaration scoping. It is difficult for them to implement > this. They would rather implement template C++ functions. > > Na: I need to discuss with that person offline the nature of their > problem. > > Colomar: Would it be acceptable for Clang to propose forward > declarations, and then allow compilers to decide whether they want to do > this retroactive parsing? > > Tarditi: You could use that rationale to deny many changes. I do not > think this is a serious issue. We could add implementation-defined > limits if forward tokens is an issue. > > Celeste: This could potentially be optional. I do not think that is > possible. It does not give any cues to the compiler. Which bits would be > optional? If the expression in the array bounds is limited to an > identifier, there is no parsing problem. > > Meneide: We do have an "implementation limit" section in the standard > for such things. Limits on look-ahead for this feature can go there. > > Straw Poll: Would WG14 like to adopt something along the lines of N3923 > for C2y? 3-0-0+12-7-4=15-7-4 strong direction to proceed > > Gustedt: If we want this into C2y, we should have a paper with the > semantics cleared by November, so it can go to the Wording Group. > ---end snip--- > > I assume the "Columnar" listed above is a typo for "Colomar". Yes, it is. Have a lovely night! Alex > > Regards, > Branden --