Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 2025-05-20, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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.

Sure they are. For instance the GNU C dialect family is C, and so is
every vendor's dialect.

Only ISO C is ISO C. ISO C is C, and so are some other things.

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.

The Bible says it's the word of God; that don't make it true.

C90 and C99 are C languages which continue to be defined and exist.

Moreover, every C++ dialect, current and historic, is also a C dialect!

You can have an opinion as to whether or not you like the ISO practices,
but not on what those practices are.

The ISO practices don't dictate to the world what is a dialect of C.
They do *produce* dialects of C, undeniably.

They only produce; they do not destroy dialects of C.

It's very hard to destroy languages; civilization still hashaccess to
(and interest in) thousands-of-years-old languages.

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.

But it's a fact that ISO cannot cancel anything in the world.  All they
can do is express the opinion that they consider a document, and what it
describes, to be obsolete, not to assert that it doesn't exist.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca