Re: C90 fpeek

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn3tmd$35e2n$5@dont-email.me...

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 10:58:32 +1100, Paul Edwards wrote:
>

You could argue that if I'm willing to add ANSI X3.64,
why not also add C23 and POSIX and ...
>
I don't have a good answer to that, other than I'm trying to keep
movement away from C90 to a minimum.

>
Let me suggest a more reasonable baseline for code that is to be minimally
relevant to this century: C99 + POSIX.

I am not attempting to satisfy your definition of
"minimally relevant to this century".

I'm attempting to construct that world of C90 that you called
boring in another message.

The only real difference is that I don't have an expectation that
the C89/C90 committees were faultless (or had the ability to
be faultless), or that existing practice was faultless - or had the
ability to be faultless - or had the time to be faultless - or had
the hindsight required to be faultless - so I am expecting some
minimal movement away from C90 for the things that weren't
incorporated at the time, but probably would have if there had
been some more data available.

I'm not claiming to have all the data available now, but I do have
some data available now - an entire toolchain and OS in standard
C90.

It is the editor, and file transfer, which I can't do in standard C90.

It's pretty close though, and I think it is reasonable to make some
slight adjustments to C90 based on the shortfall.

BFN. Paul.