Re: encapsulating directory operations

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l c 
Sujet : Re: encapsulating directory operations
De : 643-408-1753 (at) *nospam* kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 21. May 2025, 20:31:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20250521121507.235@kylheku.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
On 2025-05-21, Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't need an official endorsement. What I need to know
is that you can't think of any philosophical reason that the
C90 committee shouldn't have done that - had they chosen
to do so.

That's like a double recursion: taking us into a subjunctive
derived from an unrealized past!

I think all the pieces are in the discussion until now to identify why
it would have been a bad idea for C90 to try to provide directory
access.  A one-size fits all solution could easily have low fidelity for
real programs whose users demand detailed platform integration, or else
it could be a mess full of options and details that try to cover every
system, but don't make sense on most of them.

Common Lisp's pathnames are a good example of the latter.  It's a
complicated feature which has details that map to exotic filesystems
that are no longer in use.  MOreover, different implementations of
Common Lisp for the same host systems vary in how they map certain
details of pathname objects to the host operating system.  For instance
given the suffix .tar.gz on POSIX, one pathname implementations might
treat just the "gz" as a the type attribute, whereas another might treat
"tar.gz" as the type attribute.

I think that if you're making some self-contained solution that must
havce a hierarchical file system, and has to be in C90, then just
code up a filesystem that exists entirely within one file that
you can open for updating in binary mode using fopen("....", "r+b")
and within which you create all the needed structure.

Then you need not have a shred of anything system-specific
in your file code.

As an almost completely separate project, you could write a FUSE
(filesystem in user space) module for Linux that would allow users to
mount your filesystem image. This way images could be manipulated by
something other than your software, which could come in handy.

If you impelment an existing filesystem (like FAT32 or whatever)
then that works is already done. Given a file containing a FAT32
image, you can mount that on existing operating systems.
That could help you in your development.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 May07:06 * encapsulating directory operations160Paul Edwards
20 May08:27 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations21Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May10:33 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations20Paul Edwards
21 May01:10 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations19Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:23 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Paul Edwards
21 May04:37 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations17Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May11:00 i    +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
22 May07:49 i    i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May08:02 i    i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
22 May00:51 i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations13James Kuyper
22 May06:04 i     `* Re: encapsulating directory operations12Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May19:13 i      `* Re: encapsulating directory operations11James Kuyper
22 May23:46 i       `* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May00:07 i        `* Re: encapsulating directory operations9James Kuyper
23 May00:15 i         `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Kaz Kylheku
23 May00:26 i          +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
23 May01:44 i          i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
24 May03:26 i          i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May01:10 i          `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
23 May03:08 i           `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Kaz Kylheku
24 May00:29 i            `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
24 May01:08 i             `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May10:18 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations58Keith Thompson
20 May10:33 i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Richard Heathfield
20 May10:45 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May12:42 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May14:55 ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:05 iii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May15:09 iii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
20 May15:15 iii i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May15:48 iii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
20 May16:02 iii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May16:28 iii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
23 May13:43 ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Tim Rentsch
23 May14:27 ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
24 May06:32 ii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Tim Rentsch
24 May06:54 ii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May10:36 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Paul Edwards
20 May13:23 i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations39David Brown
20 May14:47 i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations38Paul Edwards
20 May15:37 i i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Richard Heathfield
20 May16:11 i i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
20 May16:43 i i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
20 May22:15 i i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
20 May23:50 i i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May02:11 i i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May03:40 i i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
21 May05:50 i i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
21 May09:06 i i i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2David Brown
21 May09:27 i i i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May17:19 i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations27David Brown
20 May17:43 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May18:14 i i  i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:20 i i  ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
20 May19:50 i i  ii +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May20:34 i i  ii `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May09:09 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May17:51 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:09 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May19:34 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May22:41 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
20 May23:02 i i  i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May02:05 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May10:23 i i  i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May22:51 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
21 May05:31 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
21 May11:08 i i  i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Paul Edwards
21 May11:28 i i  i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
21 May16:00 i i  i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations5David Brown
21 May16:37 i i  i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Richard Heathfield
21 May18:21 i i  i    +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Michael S
22 May11:37 i i  i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
22 May18:53 i i  i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May23:09 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May09:27 i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3David Brown
21 May11:46 i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May15:46 i i    `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
21 May01:12 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:25 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May02:03 i   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May14:53 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations75Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:12 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations74Paul Edwards
20 May22:41 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations73Keith Thompson
20 May23:38 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations72Paul Edwards
21 May00:09 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Paul Edwards
21 May00:22 i   i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May01:18 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
21 May01:31 i   ii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May02:02 i   i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May00:18 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations57Keith Thompson
21 May00:57 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations49Paul Edwards
21 May06:41 i   ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations48Keith Thompson
21 May11:41 i   ii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Paul Edwards
21 May19:06 i   ii i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations40Keith Thompson
21 May19:22 i   ii ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
22 May22:10 i   ii ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations35Paul Edwards
22 May23:32 i   ii iii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations33Keith Thompson
23 May00:16 i   ii iiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Paul Edwards
23 May02:38 i   ii iiiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Keith Thompson
25 May23:12 i   ii iiiiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
25 May23:34 i   ii iiiiii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Keith Thompson
23 May03:28 i   ii iiiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
23 May06:08 i   ii iiiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Janis Papanagnou
23 May16:09 i   ii iiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Richard Harnden
22 May23:44 i   ii iii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
22 May23:06 i   ii ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
21 May20:31 i   ii i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
22 May22:52 i   ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
21 May03:21 i   i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
21 May03:26 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations7James Kuyper
21 May22:19 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Waldek Hebisch
21 May03:35 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Janis Papanagnou
22 May19:34 +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
25 May06:10 `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Tim Rentsch

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal