Re: encapsulating directory operations

"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87y0uot8b7.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...

"Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:

But neither of these are in C23. Nor were they in C90.
I want a slight variation to BOTH of those standards,
and for the next ISO standard - C30 or whatever -
to include that slight variation.
>
(I didn't previously state this, because I wasn't aware
of it, again)

>
I don't believe

You are correct to nuance things - an acknowledgement
that you can't predict the future with 100% certainty.

that you personally will have any influence over any
future C standard.  Your goals are too different from the goals of the
committee and those of the vast majority of people who care about C.

To me - this is a "mere challenge".

In this case, the plan is that my "add-on library", is so
small, and so useful, and hopefully so popular, that it
gets standardized into a theoretical C30, as well as
existing C90 libraries - including but not limited to
PDPCLIB - updated to include this new feature, that,
in hindsight, should have existed even in K&R C.

>
In my opinion that will never happen.

I am discussing a theoretical possibility, not making a
hard prediction.

I have no problem with whatever functionality you want to provide in
your PDPCLIB, and I'm willing to discuss some of it in technical terms.

Sure, thanks.

 It's just a library. It may or may not
depend on features of the C90 standard library.

>
No. It IS C90+.

>
I don't know what you mean by that.  If you mean that your PDPCLIB
library IS "C90+", that's fine; both are your invented terms.
But it's an odd choice of terminology.

You are guessing what I am talking about, so I will try to
explain.

No. PDPCLIB *will be* one of the possible theoretical
implementations of C90+.

Right now, it is pure C90.

Because right now, C90+ doesn't exist.

As such, there is no ESCAPE or any other define in any existing
or new header in PDPCLIB.

And that's the problem - I don't know where to add it.
As it turns out, the "defacto vague committee" made a
determination that "ESCAPE" is not an appropriate
name. I agree with the other members of the committee,
and the original proposer - ie you - agreed with that
"good catch".

That's a pretty good result to me.

If the other control characters are necessary for the
operation of microemacs - which I believe they are -
more than just ESCAPE needs to be added anyway.

Which header file and what names - that don't start
with "E"?

This is intended to be in the official ISO C standard for the next
1 million years.

>
That will not happen.

Even assuming that non-ESCAPE is never added to the
ISO C standard - and I'm not sure how you can predict
that - that doesn't stop it from being my INTENTION.

Actually influencing ISO is a separate exercise.

>
That will not happen either.

What do you mean by that? Not one single member of
the ISO committee will ever be influenced by a single
thing I say? Even if I join the committee myself? Even if
I bribe them? Even if I coerce them? Even if I stack the
ISO committee with my friends (after making some
friends - or bribing some people)?

It probably won't involve coercion.
>
But coercion wouldn't be required if the C90+ committee comes
up with something reasonable.

>
That sounds like a threat.  If it is, I suggest you stick it where the
sun don't shine.  But as far as I know you have no ability to carry out
your threat, so it's more pathetically amusing that frightening.

You are correct that I have no ability to coerce anyone at all.
Nor do I wish to do so even if I did. Nor did I even say it was
required.

It is a theoretical possibility.

Don't assume you can predict the future.

It never ever occurred to me that a US president would one
day mull over invading an erstwhile ally (Denmark) in order
to annex some territory (Greenland), that they are already on
as invited guests.

And if I am one day elected president of the USA, at the
same time as Chancellor of Germany, and a few other
places, you may well find 90% of the planet using it (or
at least, having it on their system).

>
See above regarding "where the sun don't shine".

I only need 51% of the vote, not 100% of the vote.

And I only said that 90% of the planet may be using
my ecosystem, not 100%.

You have no personal control over either those 51% or
those 90%.

We're both lobbying for their support.

"Don't vote for Paul - he's going to replace the ISO
C committee just so that he can run microemacs!!!".

I don't think most voters will care as much about that
issue as you apparently do. But we'll see ...

And again - I don't actually care if I succeed. I'm happy
to have just tried.

Did you see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

The guy tries to lift the water cooler. It doesn't really
bother him that he failed.

A big Indian guy succeeded.

Maybe one day a big Indian guy will read comp.lang.c
and complete what I was unable to complete.

BFN. Paul.