Re: encapsulating directory operations

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
news:100ia33$2ae8t$1@dont-email.me...

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.

Kaz has answered all of these questions to my satisfaction,
so I won't add anything further.

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.

What do you mean?

I was told non-stop that it was "my fault" that I needed
more than the 16 MiB that was addressable by a S/370
and that I should "fix" "my" compiler. I was instead
"fixing" the architecture so that gcc could operate without
code changes.

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.

Basically the software industry is a joke. The advances have
all been done by hardware engineers.

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.

He probably wouldn't disapprove of Rust being created either.

But I've actually seen Rust. No way this is a replacement for
assembler.

C I see as a replacement for assembler.

Anything past C90 is just pie in the sky let's add the kitchen
sink too and an abomination too.

If I saw people coding int_fast32_t instead of int32_t, it
would have some passing resemblance to C90.

It isn't remotely a passing resemblence.

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.

No it isn't. Because then it becomes a too-high bar for
compiler vendors and library vendors and the computers
themselves to reach.

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!

Competing with ISO is not difficult.

Defeating ISO is the ambitious thing. I didn't say I was trying
to win the competition. I'm not specifically saying I don't
want to win though. Note that I am also attempting to become
the US president, without being an American citizen or even
going to America. People keep saying it is impossible, because
the rules say xyz, and I point out how the rules also say I can
hold a Convention of the States to change those rules - all I
need is a fairly uniform 51% support of the American people,
and wait a few years for the appropriate elections, and it will
happen.

I didn't say that I'm expecting to get that 51%. But nor did
Trump get that in 2020. That's always been the challenge - 51%.

I'm also trying to become Chancellor of Germany without
going to Germany or learning German.

Not expecting to win that one either. But there's nothing
physically stopping me from trying.

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,

That's not possible. There is no such concept in C90. That's
the problem.

and dropped the bizarre doomsday philosophy.

That's a joke.

Choose C90 for
maximal portability, or personal preference - that's fine.  Trying to
convince other people that C90 is somehow "perfect"

I don't think I made that claim.

while C99 is a
"complete and utter joke" is not going to get you much technical help.

I don't see what bearing my opinion on C99 (or politics,
or anything) has on a technical discussion of C90, but
so be it.

Telling us that you are doing all this to be "apocalypse-ready" simply
brands you as a delusional nutcase.

I personally don't care if I'm talking to Pol Pot himself.

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.

Sounds like some people are easily distracted. I just snip
the bits that I'm not interested in.

Same as any debate anywhere. And verbal discussions too.
I don't really care if people swear at me. I first parse their
sentence into ASCII text (so that I can continue the
discussion online without interruption), strip out swearing etc,
scanning for a technical point.

And when the technical counter-arguments reach zero bytes,
I laugh. Works for me. I do an OOB check before any
part of the conversation becomes face to face though. And
if the OOB isn't in my favor I tell them to take it online, so
that my style of argument doesn't need to change.

BFN. Paul.