This is too close to C++ templated functions, I would prefer just use C++ syntax with stricter rules like C23 did with constexpr and auto. Being able to interop/share code with C++ with extern "C"{ template<T> } wouldn't hurt either.
I see the non-proposal and WG14's <Forward Declaration of Parameters> parts of the pursuit to finally standardize passing size info over function calls, with past arts even from Dennis Ritchie himself. While I don't have a strong preference on how it should be done (other than "just use fat pointers already"), I feel some of these too much new syntax for too little improvement. C codebases have established routines for generic types if those were needed, there would be little incentive to adopt a new one. And judging from what Linux[0] and Apple[1] have been doing, if projects are doing annotations at all, they would want a superset of just size or alignment.
I see the non-proposal and WG14's <Forward Declaration of Parameters> parts of the pursuit to finally standardize passing size info over function calls, with past arts even from Dennis Ritchie himself. While I don't have a strong preference on how it should be done (other than "just use fat pointers already"), I feel some of these too much new syntax for too little improvement. C codebases have established routines for generic types if those were needed, there would be little incentive to adopt a new one. And judging from what Linux[0] and Apple[1] have been doing, if projects are doing annotations at all, they would want a superset of just size or alignment.
[0] https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1617/attachments/1... [1] https://llvm.org/devmtg/2023-05/slides/TechnicalTalks-May11/...