Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 20/05/2025 15:47, Paul Edwards wrote:

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
news:100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me...

On 20/05/2025 11:36, Paul Edwards wrote:

"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...

"Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
>

>

And C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h

>
C90 will never be extended.  It was made obsolete by C99, which was

made

obsolete by C11, which was made obsolete by C23.  You're free to invent
your own language based on C90 if you like, but C went in a different
direction decades ago.

>
That depends on your definition of "C". Ritchie is no longer here to
adjudicate whether something close to C90 - in the spirit of the
original C, is the true successor to his language, and which one is
a complete and utter joke of no relation to anything he designed.
>

>
Once C was standardised - first by ANSI, then immediately afterwards by
ISO - the "definition of C" became clear.

 Yes, I agree with that.

Then why do think that something might depend on someone's "definition of C" ?  The definition of C is clear - it is what the international standard says it is.  You can have other C-like languages, but they are not C.

 

The language is covered by an
international standard, so "C" is the language defined by that standard.
   Thus "C" means "C23" at the moment - each newly published C standard
"cancels and replaces" the previous version.

 I don't agree with this.

You don't get to have an opinion on facts.  What I said is /fact/ - you can look at what it says in each new version of the C standards.  This is also normal practice for ISO standards.
You can have an opinion as to whether or not you like the ISO practices, but not on what those practices are.

I'm sure the ISO committee is keen
to "cancel" the previous work.
 But I have a different opinion.
 I doubt that I am alone. I'm probably in a minority, but so what?
 

Again, you don't get to have an opinion on what the ISO committees practices are - you only get to have an opinion on whether or not you like them.  It is good to be clear on that difference.
Now, you are certainly not alone in wanting to use older versions of the C standards despite them being "cancelled and replaced" by newer versions.  And I think it is very common in the C world to appreciate that in practice, old versions are well supported by tools.  (I typically write new projects to new standards, but I am very glad that tools still actively support old standards.)

Ritchie's opinion hasn't
had any connection to the "definition of C" since 1989.  I don't know if
he ever expressed a public opinion on C99, or the plans for C11.  I
would, however, be astounded if he had considered it "a complete and
utter joke of no relation to anything he designed".

 Well, in the 1990s I had some work colleagues who were
incensed that I had converted some K&R C code to C90,
and called it "nancy C". I pointed out that Ritchie himself
had endorsed the standard, and they still didn't budge,
saying that he had become deranged or something like that.
 

They were justified in thinking that "Richie himself endorsed the standard" is a totally irrelevant argument.  They would be wrong if they said he had "become deranged".
While there are some people who, for reasons that still escape me, prefer C90 over C99 when given a free choice (i.e., not required by toolchain limitations, project standards, etc.), I do not think many people consider K&R C to be superior to C90.

 From another corner I still deal with people who insist
that everything should be written in assembler.
 

Some things /are/ better written in assembler.  Not many things, but some things.

And in another corner, there are people who claim that I
am at fault for not making "my" compiler (a slight variation
of gcc 3.2.3) run in under 16 MiB of memory.
 

Now you are stretching credulity.

I understand where these people are coming from.
 And I can see the alternative described by that Jeff article
I referenced.
 

Few people click on random links.  If you have something to say, say it.

But my starting position is that I (sort of) can't personally
fault the C90 standard, and the assembler code produced
by a typical C compiler is exemplary, and that this is the
basis for the lingua franca of programming.
 

(And while I don't think that an "appeal to authority" argument has much
merit, he did say that he found Linux "quite delightful" as a
continuation of UNIX, and I would not expect him to have viewed your OS
ideas as productive.)

 I'm not asking him to approve my OS ideas. I'm asking him
to explain what is wrong with the C90 that he approved of,
and whether my mentioned extensions are reasonable.
 

You can ask him anything you like - just don't be surprised if he does not answer.
I never knew Ritchie personally, and can only make guesses as to what he might think or say.  I would, however, be very surprised if he considered C90 to be "perfect" or in any sense complete, or that he disapproved of the C standards committee moving forward with the language.  I expect that like most of us, he would like some parts of each new standard, and dislike other parts - some parts he would find useful, and others not so much.  And he would be happy to accept that the language is not for him personally - it's fine to have features that are of use and interest to other people.

But Keith is absolutely correct here.  C90 is C90, and will remain that
way (baring the very unlikely possibility of minor technical corrections).
>
You can make your own libraries, and OS's, and extensions, and languages
- whatever makes you happy.  (And if you enjoy what you are doing, and
it's not harming anyone, then that's all the reason you need.  You don't
need approval from anyone else.  Don't let me or anyone else hinder you
enjoying yourself.)  However, nothing that you ever do will be an
extension to C90.

 You seem to have a different definition of "extension to C90" to me, then.
 

You suggested "extending C90" with the inclusion of your new functions. That's the definition of "extension to C90" I am using.

Which is also fine.
 Regardless, I intend to compete with the ISO committee, and
not so much start from scratch, as start from C90.
 

You don't lack ambition!

My branch may not appeal to a majority, but I'm not particularly
trying to appeal to a majority. I'm interested in appealing to the
people who I work with (e.g. author of pdld). And I'm also
interested in technical guidance from the majority who likely
have more technical skills than me, regardless of whether they
agree with my approach/goals or not (spoiler: they don't).
 

I have no problem with giving technical advice (if I have any that I think will be useful - I work with a significantly different type of programming, however).  But I think you'd get on a lot better if you said you were trying to write a C90 library of functions for directory access, and dropped the bizarre doomsday philosophy.  Choose C90 for maximal portability, or personal preference - that's fine.  Trying to convince other people that C90 is somehow "perfect" while C99 is a "complete and utter joke" is not going to get you much technical help. Telling us that you are doing all this to be "apocalypse-ready" simply brands you as a delusional nutcase.  And while I think delusional nutcases (as long as they are non-violent) have as much right to get technical answers as the next person, it really does distract from the C-related questions you have.