Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 30/05/2025 17:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 30/05/2025 15:02, David Brown wrote:

On 30/05/2025 12:54, Richard Heathfield wrote:

 <snip>
 

Obviously it's a contrived example, but then examples pointing out the consequences of language differences invariably are.
>

>
The analogy there is like complaining you can't use the back end of your new spanner to hammer in nails, because it now has a box/ring at the end.

 Your argument now appears to be that people wouldn't need C90 if only they'd written their C90 in such a way that C99 would have met their needs.
 

I can't see how you get that from what I wrote.
However, it /is/ the case that most people write / wrote their C90 in such a way that C99 meets their needs.  The good folks who gave us C99 specifically made backwards compatibility a priority (though not an absolute).
I'm not sure we are getting anywhere with this thread...

This is undoubtedly the case.