This is closing in 5 days. Add your response to the mix as soon as possible, or risk never being heard in the Official Vote™!!
@thephd@pony.social your survey doesn't accept any of my email addresses
@linear Put a fake one in, I guess. I won't be using them for any real purpose except post at you if it seems your response is broken/incomplete.
@thephd i didn't fill the survey but I vote for countof :-) i think this fits best with sizeof
@thephd More C standard stuff should be put to a popular vote. Just for the sake of getting a better idea of what people in the wild are actually looking for.
With Python that seems to have become a big problem where the language developers were too deep into their own circles, extremly disconnected from the average Python dev that is not gonna respond to a core dev mailing list survery, let alone be aware of their work to begin with.
@timonsku I am running the survey to gather data. Whether the Committee listens or values that data is another story.
@thephd lengthof() is obviously the right name for this feature, as for requiring a header that seems fine
@kdave We're naming an operator, not providing a macro. ARRAY_SIZE
is a macro, and it has all the usual macro problems.
@thephd I'm quite surprised by the assertion that `nelements` could easily become a keyword because it shows up nowhere that matters. https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbnelements%5Cb&literal=0&perpkg=1 seems to very much contradict this.
@cjwatson The keyword would be nlementsof
, which does show up nowhere anyone cares about:
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbnelementsof%5Cb&literal=0