Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote:

On 29/05/2025 10:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 08:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:13:20 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

And who cares about future instability if C90 remains just as stable as
ever it was?

>
Even with the problems with const?
>
     char *strstr(const char *haystack, const char *needle);
>
Dennis Ritchie pointed out the trouble with that.

>
Is C90 perfect? No, of course not. "C is quirky, flawed, and an enormous success."
>
Is there value in having a powerful, widely-available language that, when you turn your back for a moment, stays *exactly* where you left it? Hell, yes.
>

 That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to C23. Once implemented, they don't change either.
 I agree with all your are arguments on this,

So far so good. :-)

except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different from later C standards in this regard.

I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that.
I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within