Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 29/05/2025 22:19, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

On 29/05/2025 21:45, Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

C99 is also exactly the same as itself.

>
Yes, but it's different from C99.

No it isn't! It's different from C90. (Mea culpa; poor proofreading on my part.)
<snip>

I shudder to think how much C90 code is out there, but it has to
be /at least/ in the region of 10^9 LOC, much of it in the
military arena, medical applications, and particularly the world
of comms. Letting C90 compilers fall off the radar (e.g. by
society forgetting how to program in it) really could be a
stupendously bad idea, for all the reasons that people overlook
when they shrug and say `I expect it'll all turn out fine'.

 And all the existing C compilers in the entire planet support
the C90 dialect[*], if so instructed.

Indeed. It's hard to imagine a platform without a C90 compiler. That's an extraordinarily powerful quality that we would do well not to lose.

  Where is the problem?

Where? I don't know. /When/ is the problem? When we forget that it matters.

[*] Well, except perhap Bart's and various hobby compilers.

Er, quite.
--
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