Re: encapsulating directory operations

"Janis Papanagnou" <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1010g5b$1lr7o$1@dont-email.me...

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?

That's not part of C90, nor even C23.

Which means there are lot of compilers - some of which I still use -
that don't have that, and are never likely to be updated - even
with a patch.

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'.

Yes - had they done that.

Even then, I still need control characters for microemacs.

(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.)

I'm expecting to be defined through a header file.

Not necessarily one of the ones that already exist in C90.

Not necessarily not, either.

BFN. Paul.