Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 26.05.2025 00:40, Paul Edwards wrote:

"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87a570jpe6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...

 
You can just use '\x27' in your code.  It doesn't
have to be part of the language standard.  If you have an application
that, for whatever reason, needs to drive both ASCII and EBCDIC
terminals, you can configure it by any means you like to use
'\x1b' or '\x27` (command-line argument, environment variable,
configuration file, reply from the terminal, whatever).

 
Yes, I agree those are standards-conforming alternatives.
 
But not what I want. For reasons which are difficult for me
to elaborate - "aesthetic", or "self-contained" may or may
not be apt words - I want to include the ESCAPE in the
C code, just like the "hello, world\n" bit.

Doesn't '\e' work for you?

    char * str = "\e";
    puts (str);

    printf ("\e\n");

    putchar ('\e');
    putchar ('\n');

Works for me. - Is that non-standard?

$ cc -std=c90 escape.c
$ a.out | od -c
0000000 033  \n 033  \n 033  \n

 
The C90 committee didn't force me to accept "\n" from a
config file, so that I could have CRLF on MSDOS.

If what you want as "escape" is a semantical name also on your
EBCDIC systems then I'd expect a compiler to use the correct
encoding for '\e'.

(If OTOH that "escape" isn't a general semantical term then it
wouldn't be reflected by the compiler; you certainly cannot
expect it be defined through a _configuration_ file.)

Janis

[...]