Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 21/05/2025 12:46, Paul Edwards wrote:

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
news:100k2q7$2o7b7$3@dont-email.me...

On 20/05/2025 18:58, Scott Lurndal wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

On 20/05/2025 15:47, Paul Edwards wrote:

>

Well, in the 1990s I had some work colleagues who were
incensed that I had converted some K&R C code to C90,
and called it "nancy C". I pointed out that Ritchie himself
had endorsed the standard, and they still didn't budge,
saying that he had become deranged or something like that.
>

>
They were justified in thinking that "Richie himself endorsed the
standard" is a totally irrelevant argument.  They would be wrong if

they

said he had "become deranged".

>
David, it's not particularly productive to continue to feed the trolls.
>
Mr. Edwards also believes that MS-DOS is the be-all and end-all of

operating

systems.

>
If he can be persuaded to leave that kind of stuff out of his posts, he
might talk more about C.

 That statement of  belief - nor anything close to that -
exists in any of my recent, nor even my past, posts.
 So I have already done as requested - and always have.
 

By "that kind of stuff" I meant anything related to your - let's diplomatically call them "unusual" - beliefs about operating systems, software, hardware, computers, standards, and pretty much anything you have posted about.  I really don't care what operating systems you like or don't like.  Stick to the questions about C itself - drop the fantasies you tell yourself to justify your ideas.  No one cares about whether your code works on a decades-outdated mainframe, because your code will never be used on such systems.  No one who uses a mainframe would let you or your code come within a mile of the machine.
But if you say you want some advice on making a directory API in C that should work on a mainframe emulator, and you are doing it just for fun, then people will be happy to give any technical suggestions they have.