"because the problematic behavior was removed from the standard over 27 years ago, we'll never have closure on what the intended interpretation is."
Obsolete standard turns out to be insufficiently strict, news at 11.
"because the problematic behavior was removed from the standard over 27 years ago, we'll never have closure on what the intended interpretation is."
Obsolete standard turns out to be insufficiently strict, news at 11.
newc at 11, too. it was called c11.
op implies the issues in c89 were fixed with c99 not c11.
it may seem like a slightly more ridiculous claim, given the infamous features added in c99, although, in hindsight, every version after c89 was less C–like than the previous.
it's just a silly pun. Also if you think C89 was peak, I encourage you to build a little ecosystem around it again and share it on HN.