Talk:C syntax/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is this really about C syntax?

This article covers much more than syntax. It talks about type and array semantics, even including the detail that strings are null-terminated! None of that is syntax. Should the semantic content be removed? or should the title and lead be changed?

Also, this article talks about C as though it has been the same from the beginning to the present. The original C in which the original Unix was written had many differences from current C. --Macrakis (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible, for example, to describe the syntax of C strings with a series of rules. However, it is a lot easier and better to describe what a string is in C because most of the rules follow from understanding that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. The syntax of C string literals is part of the syntax of the language. The semantics of strings at run-time, e.g., that they are null-terminated, is not part of the syntax of the language at all. --Macrakis (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Function pointer example - why include parameters for command line parsing with no command line parsing needed?

This seems like a small pet peeve, but why include the arguments for command line argument parsing (int argc, char* args[]) in the main function of an example, like the function pointer example, where the said example doesn't use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelsonic (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)