Re: encapsulating directory operations

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: encapsulating directory operations
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 20. May 2025, 13:23:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
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.  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.  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".
(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.)

A semantic debate that doesn't answer my question either way anyway.
 
You did ask us not to give the obvious answer to your original post.
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.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 May07:06 * encapsulating directory operations128Paul Edwards
20 May08:27 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May10:33 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations17Paul Edwards
21 May01:10 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations16Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:23 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations15Paul Edwards
21 May04:37 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May11:00 i    +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
22 May07:49 i    i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May08:02 i    i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
22 May00:51 i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations10James Kuyper
22 May06:04 i     `* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May19:13 i      `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8James Kuyper
22 May23:46 i       `* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May00:07 i        `* Re: encapsulating directory operations6James Kuyper
23 May00:15 i         `* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Kaz Kylheku
23 May00:26 i          +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
23 May01:44 i          i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
23 May01:10 i          `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
23 May03:08 i           `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May10:18 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations56Keith Thompson
20 May10:33 i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations12Richard Heathfield
20 May10:45 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May12:42 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May14:55 ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:05 iii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May15:09 iii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
20 May15:15 iii i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May15:48 iii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
20 May16:02 iii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May16:28 iii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
23 May13:43 ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Tim Rentsch
23 May14:27 ii `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May10:36 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Paul Edwards
20 May13:23 i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations39David Brown
20 May14:47 i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations38Paul Edwards
20 May15:37 i i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Richard Heathfield
20 May16:11 i i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
20 May16:43 i i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
20 May22:15 i i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
20 May23:50 i i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May02:11 i i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May03:40 i i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
21 May05:50 i i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
21 May09:06 i i i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2David Brown
21 May09:27 i i i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May17:19 i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations27David Brown
20 May17:43 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May18:14 i i  i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:20 i i  ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Richard Heathfield
20 May19:50 i i  ii +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May20:34 i i  ii `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
21 May09:09 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May17:51 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May18:09 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May19:34 i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
20 May22:41 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Paul Edwards
20 May23:02 i i  i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May02:05 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May10:23 i i  i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May22:51 i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Paul Edwards
21 May05:31 i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Richard Heathfield
21 May11:08 i i  i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Paul Edwards
21 May11:28 i i  i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
21 May16:00 i i  i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations5David Brown
21 May16:37 i i  i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Richard Heathfield
21 May18:21 i i  i    +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Michael S
22 May11:37 i i  i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
22 May18:53 i i  i     `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
20 May23:09 i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May09:27 i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3David Brown
21 May11:46 i i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May15:46 i i    `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
21 May01:12 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May01:25 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May02:03 i   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May14:53 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations49Kaz Kylheku
20 May15:12 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations48Paul Edwards
20 May22:41 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations47Keith Thompson
20 May23:38 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations46Paul Edwards
21 May00:09 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Paul Edwards
21 May00:22 i   i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
21 May01:18 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
21 May01:31 i   ii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
21 May02:02 i   i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May00:18 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations31Keith Thompson
21 May00:57 i   i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations23Paul Edwards
21 May06:41 i   ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations22Keith Thompson
21 May11:41 i   ii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations19Paul Edwards
21 May19:06 i   ii i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations16Keith Thompson
21 May19:22 i   ii ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
22 May22:10 i   ii ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations11Paul Edwards
22 May23:32 i   ii iii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Keith Thompson
23 May00:16 i   ii iiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Paul Edwards
23 May02:38 i   ii iiiii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
23 May03:28 i   ii iiiii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
23 May05:27 i   ii iiiiii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Keith Thompson
23 May06:08 i   ii iiiii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Janis Papanagnou
23 May06:20 i   ii iiiii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Keith Thompson
23 May06:43 i   ii iiiii  `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Janis Papanagnou
23 May16:09 i   ii iiii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Harnden
22 May23:44 i   ii iii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
22 May23:06 i   ii ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
21 May20:31 i   ii i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
22 May22:52 i   ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Paul Edwards
21 May03:21 i   i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
21 May03:26 i   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations7James Kuyper
21 May22:19 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Waldek Hebisch
21 May03:35 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Janis Papanagnou
22 May19:34 `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal