Re: encapsulating directory operations

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:1010bqn$1l25r$1@dont-email.me...

On Mon, 26 May 2025 09:48:46 +1000, Paul Edwards wrote:
>

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:100oicc$3ob15$3@dont-email.me...

>
On Fri, 23 May 2025 07:52:27 +1000, Paul Edwards wrote:
>

Moreover, what is the definition of 'character' in this context?

>
Something that fgetc() would be able to consume without blocking.

>
That wouldn't cope with Unicode. Anything that can't cope with Unicode
isn't going to be considered very useful nowadays.

>
"people nowadays" don't speak with one voice.

>
Nor with one language. Which is why we have Unicode.

Which is one solution to the problem.

Just not a solution I agree with.

I prefer VISCII-like, possibly requiring a 9-bit char, and
invalidating all applications with POSIX assumptions.

Other solutions could involve forcing everyone to use
English. Another solution I'm not in favor of - at least
not right now. I'm pretty happy with what C90 came
up with. The standard was delayed for a year because
of that, I believe I read.

BFN. Paul.