Re: encapsulating directory operations

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

On 20/05/2025 10:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
>

C90 will never be extended.

>
And for that reason it will always be valuable.  Stability
has a value all its own.

>
C99 is just as stable as C90, and has been for well over a
decade.

>
Sure, but it's a different stable.
>
If it were the same stable, it would be C90.
>
C99 isn't C90, therefore it isn't the same stable.
>
If you tell me C99 is a rock, I will not doubt you.  But the C90
rock it most certainly isn't.

>
Now you're being silly.

>
No, sir.  If you want to play that game, you can play it with
yourself.  I know that you are perfectly capable of polite
conversation, so I see no reason to endure the opposite.

I don't think I'm being impolite.  I think your comments
were deliberately playing games with language, to make a
point that has nothing to do with what I said.  I don't
think it's rude or even inconsiderate to point that out.
If someone wants to say it could have been pointed out in
a better way, okay, probably it could have been, but it
wasn't meant as a personal comment, and I think that was
evident from the rest of what I said (which was left out
in your followup message).