Re: encapsulating directory operations

On 23.05.2025 01:16, Paul Edwards wrote:

"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87bjrkxonr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...

[...]

>
If you're going to stick with existing C90 compilers, it seems
to me that all you need for your purposes is an add-on library.

This is (still) the [first] key observation, IMO.

(And the second at the end of the post.)

Here's the first disconnect.
 
Yes - I already have an add-on library - that's the folder.c and
folder.h I referenced in the beginning. And unistd.h would be
another.
 
But neither of these are in C23. Nor were they in C90.
I want a slight variation to BOTH of those standards,
and for the next ISO standard - C30 or whatever -
to include that slight variation.

You asked for suggestions and opinions. - And I suggest not to
strive towards that (primary?) goal as your next step.

I suggest to try a more modest approach, instead.

See for example how things went into other languages' evolution;
for example how STL or Booch functions entered C++. And also note
Stepanow's long and broad experiences on such a library that went
into STL before it got part of [later versions of] C++.

Can you say the same of your project? - It would certainly be
helpful.

[...]
 

All your talk of defining
a new language based on C90 (whether you call it C90+, or C91,
or whatever), as far as I can tell, is not useful.

 
I apologize for not having the ability to express myself.
I can only see in hindsight what the issues are.
 
In this case, the plan is that my "add-on library", is so
small, and so useful, and hopefully so popular, that it
gets standardized into a theoretical C30,

That all is not upon you who decides it. But you mentioned a
crucial keyword here; "popular".

If you have created a separate library, advertise it so that it
gets used, and if people are widely happy to have that library
suggest it for inclusion. Then committees might pick it up (or
not).

as well as
existing C90 libraries - including but not limited to
PDPCLIB - updated to include this new feature, that,
in hindsight, should have existed even in K&R C.

Your opinion on that is fine. There may even be more people
sharing that opinion.

[...]  You don't
want to change the core language (Section 6 of the standard).
You don't need to change the standard library (Section 7); [...]

Janis

[...]