Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 28/05/2025 13:41, Tim Rentsch wrote:

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.

Then we are again in disagreement, and it seems obvious that it would be foolishly optimistic of me to expect to be able to resolve the matter. I'll tell Thunderbird to leave it there.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within