Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 19:36:06 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <100hieb$261k5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 11:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0d5a6b4b43d1a9768c38cdc271b55e1";
	logging-data="2295429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SvOj2ZMPN1DsRDB396KSpfeHSa9cZF2s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lx7PVVKJ9rSuORQggicVgiE24BE=
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

"Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...
> "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Someone (Jean-Marc) wrote some "folder" routines which I like a lot.
> > You can see them here:
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/hwzip/folder.c
> >
> > And in essence, when you read from a directory, the only
> > thing you get is the filename. If it is actually a subdirectory,
> > then that is indicated with a "/" at the end of the filename.
> >
> > Other things like size and creation date are not available,
> > and C90 does not guarantee that such concepts even
> > exist. C90 does guarantee that files exist though.
>
> C90, like all later standards, supports file operations only in hosted
> implementations, not in freestanding implementations.  Even on a
> conforming hosted implementation, every call to fopen() could fail.

Sure. I'm talking about hosted implementations where you can
make fopen do something other than permanently fail.

> > And C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h
>
> C90 will never be extended.  It was made obsolete by C99, which was made
> obsolete by C11, which was made obsolete by C23.  You're free to invent
> your own language based on C90 if you like, but C went in a different
> direction decades ago.

That depends on your definition of "C". Ritchie is no longer here to
adjudicate whether something close to C90 - in the spirit of the
original C, is the true successor to his language, and which one is
a complete and utter joke of no relation to anything he designed.

A semantic debate that doesn't answer my question either way anyway.

BFN. Paul.