Re: encapsulating directory operations

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: encapsulating directory operations
De : mutazilah (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Paul Edwards)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 21. May 2025, 11:00:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100k87q$2pear$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:100jhor$2lgt3$4@dont-email.me...
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:23:27 +1000, Paul Edwards wrote:
>
Your definition of "real world", is probably "not C90".
>
Precisely.
>
Your "real world" applications won't work on traditional MVS ...
>
Let's face it: MVS stopped being part of the "real world" a long time ago.
Just about the time IBM's mainframe business started circling the gurgler.

I don't agree with that.

Regardless, I'm not attempting to have a debate about the
definition of "real world".

That is an example of a system I wish to support. It existed
at the time the C90 standard came out.

(Also, I think it's called "z/OS" now.)

Right. Still exists in 2025 too.

And that's assuming you want to ignore my MVS/380 update.

I'm not saying *you* should support MVS. I'm not saying
the ISO C23 committee should support MVS.

I note that C90 *does* support MVS.

And I am saying that my proposed C90+ explicitly needs to
support MVS 3.8J as an important target that cannot be
ignored.

And you can add DEC/VMS too.

The key point about symlinks is they are not the same as hardlinks.
>
There is no such universal concept for either of those things,
>
Yes there is: they are defined in POSIX, which is an official standard,
after all.

An official standard that isn't even supported by Windows, which
is far more important than any POSIX system in existence. Except
z/OS obviously. But I'm not interested in the bolt-on z/OS Unix.

Yes - I acknowledge that a POSIX bandwagon exists.

And if people want to jump on it - that's fine - it's a free world.

I'm just saying that I rarely use a POSIX-compliant system,
but do use multiple C90-compliant systems.

And it is the latter that I wish to make small changes to.
Supporting what someone else called a "half-baked"
file system is just one of those several extensions I am
interested in.

Do note one more thing.

The C90 standard deferred to MVS - probably still does -
and says that you can't open a file as "w", then read it as
"rb" and write (a new file) as "wb", and still access (the
new file) with "r".

I was shocked when I saw IBM's C library lose the newlines
when I did the above, and went to look at the standard to
show that IBM was violating C90 - but it turns out they
weren't.

That sort of means you can't write a "zip" program portably,
against the theoretical C90 file system. Or you would have
to have flags to say which files need to be opened as text
or binary.

I do not agree with IBM's C library, and PDPCLIB does
not have that behavior, so that constraint could potentially
be dropped in a C90+ standard.

BFN. Paul.



Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 May 25 * encapsulating directory operations308Paul Edwards
20 May 25 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations83Lawrence D'Oliveiro
20 May 25 i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations20Paul Edwards
21 May 25 ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations19Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May 25 ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Paul Edwards
21 May 25 ii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations17Lawrence D'Oliveiro
21 May 25 ii   +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
22 May 25 ii   i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May 25 ii   i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
22 May 25 ii   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations13James Kuyper
22 May 25 ii    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations12Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 May 25 ii     `* Re: encapsulating directory operations11James Kuyper
22 May 25 ii      `* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May 25 ii       `* Re: encapsulating directory operations9James Kuyper
23 May 25 ii        `* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Kaz Kylheku
23 May 25 ii         +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
23 May 25 ii         i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
24 May 25 ii         i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 May 25 ii         `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4James Kuyper
23 May 25 ii          `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Kaz Kylheku
24 May 25 ii           `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
24 May 25 ii            `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
31 May 25 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations62Bonita Montero
31 May 25 i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations61Lawrence D'Oliveiro
1 Jun 25 i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations60Bonita Montero
1 Jun 25 i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations59Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2 Jun 25 i    `* Re: encapsulating directory operations58Bonita Montero
3 Jun 25 i     +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2James Kuyper
3 Jun 25 i     i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
3 Jun 25 i     +* Re: encapsulating directory operations9Lawrence D'Oliveiro
10 Jun 25 i     i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Bonita Montero
10 Jun 25 i     i +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
10 Jun 25 i     i +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Kaz Kylheku
11 Jun 25 i     i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Lawrence D'Oliveiro
11 Jun 25 i     i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Bonita Montero
11 Jun 25 i     i   +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
11 Jun 25 i     i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Bonita Montero
12 Jun 25 i     i    `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
3 Jun 25 i     `* Re: encapsulating directory operations46Bonita Montero
6 Jun 25 i      `* Re: encapsulating directory operations45Bonita Montero
6 Jun 25 i       `* Re: encapsulating directory operations44Bonita Montero
6 Jun 25 i        `* Re: encapsulating directory operations43Bonita Montero
6 Jun 25 i         `* Re: encapsulating directory operations42wij
7 Jun 25 i          `* Re: encapsulating directory operations41Bonita Montero
7 Jun 25 i           `* Re: encapsulating directory operations40wij
7 Jun 25 i            `* Re: encapsulating directory operations39Bonita Montero
7 Jun 25 i             `* Re: encapsulating directory operations38wij
7 Jun 25 i              `* Re: encapsulating directory operations37Bonita Montero
7 Jun 25 i               +* Re: encapsulating directory operations22wij
7 Jun 25 i               i+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations20Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations12Muttley
8 Jun 25 i               i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations11Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations10Muttley
8 Jun 25 i               i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Bonita Montero
9 Jun 25 i               i i  i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
9 Jun 25 i               i i  i `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i i  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Kaz Kylheku
10 Jun 25 i               i i  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Tim Rentsch
8 Jun 25 i               i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
9 Jun 25 i               i i  +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1wij
9 Jun 25 i               i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
9 Jun 25 i               i i   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i +* Re: encapsulating directory operations5wij
8 Jun 25 i               i i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3wij
8 Jun 25 i               i i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i               i i   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1wij
9 Jun 25 i               i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
9 Jun 25 i               i  `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
7 Jun 25 i               `* Re: encapsulating directory operations14Janis Papanagnou
8 Jun 25 i                `* Re: encapsulating directory operations13Bonita Montero
8 Jun 25 i                 +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Chris M. Thomasson
8 Jun 25 i                 `* Re: encapsulating directory operations11Bonita Montero
9 Jun 25 i                  +* Re: encapsulating directory operations8Bonita Montero
9 Jun 25 i                  i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Bonita Montero
9 Jun 25 i                  ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
10 Jun 25 i                  ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Muttley
10 Jun 25 i                  iii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Muttley
10 Jun 25 i                  iii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Chris M. Thomasson
10 Jun 25 i                  ii`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Waldek Hebisch
9 Jun 25 i                  i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Richard Heathfield
10 Jun 25 i                  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Tim Rentsch
10 Jun 25 i                   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
20 May 25 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations74Keith Thompson
20 May 25 i+* Re: encapsulating directory operations28Richard Heathfield
20 May 25 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May 25 ii+- Re: encapsulating directory operations1David Brown
20 May 25 ii+* Re: encapsulating directory operations7Kaz Kylheku
20 May 25 iii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
20 May 25 iii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Muttley
20 May 25 iii i`- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
20 May 25 iii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Paul Edwards
20 May 25 iii  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
20 May 25 iii   `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Paul Edwards
23 May 25 ii`* Re: encapsulating directory operations18Tim Rentsch
23 May 25 ii +* Re: encapsulating directory operations6Richard Heathfield
24 May 25 ii i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations5Tim Rentsch
24 May 25 ii i `* Re: encapsulating directory operations4Richard Heathfield
28 May 25 ii i  `* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Tim Rentsch
28 May 25 ii i   `* Re: encapsulating directory operations2Richard Heathfield
26 May 25 ii `* Re: encapsulating directory operations11Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood
20 May 25 i`* Re: encapsulating directory operations45Paul Edwards
20 May 25 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations145Kaz Kylheku
21 May 25 +* Re: encapsulating directory operations3Janis Papanagnou
22 May 25 +- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Bonita Montero
25 May 25 `- Re: encapsulating directory operations1Tim Rentsch

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal