Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Wed, 21 May 2025 01:11:27 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <100i632$29uce$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100hieb$261k5$1@dont-email.me> <100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me> <100i14o$28o7d$1@dont-email.me> <100i43s$29dr0$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 17:11:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0d5a6b4b43d1a9768c38cdc271b55e1";
	logging-data="2423182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PWjZlsMWj4BqWo0E8yTrffJDfwNXoSwg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NLmGlgKG7OsA3F/OCUL1wpOkh5M=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Bytes: 7830

"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message
news:100i43s$29dr0$1@dont-email.me...
> [This should be fun.]
>
> On 20/05/2025 14:47, Paul Edwards wrote:
> > "David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in message
> > news:100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me...
> >> On 20/05/2025 11:36, Paul Edwards wrote:
> >>> "Keith Thompson" <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com...
> >>>> "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>>> And C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h
>
> directory.h, damn you! Folders are for schoolteachers, not
> programmers. We could fall out over this.

What we'll fall out over is you exceeding the limits of
MSDOS 8.3 filenames. :-)

ISO C90 didn't do that.

And yes, I counted it on my fingers.

I suspect Jean-Marc chose "folder" because every man
and his dog has a directory-processing "standard" and
he could see that none of them were doing what I wanted
and I was struggling to express myself.

> >> The language is covered by an
> >> international standard, so "C" is the language defined by that
standard.
> >>    Thus "C" means "C23" at the moment - each newly published C standard
> >> "cancels and replaces" the previous version.
> >
> > I don't agree with this. I'm sure the ISO committee is keen
> > to "cancel" the previous work.
>
> Whether you agree with David or not, he's correct. He has
> accurately described the way the world sees C.
>
> You might argue that the world sees it wrong, and who am I to
> dissuade you? But ISO has far more clout than you or me, alas.

Oh - I guess in that light, he is indeed correct. English is
*defined* by common usage, so yes, the definition of C
is thus the latest and greatest standard, regardless of
whether there are any compilers at all that support that
language.

The world is a joke.

I've already given someone else's take on that. I just
agree with him.

> > And in another corner, there are people who claim that I
> > am at fault for not making "my" compiler (a slight variation
> > of gcc 3.2.3) run in under 16 MiB of memory.
>
> Mibs are marbles. You can't run a C compiler under 16 marbles,
> not even if you bring in Dennis Ritchie.

Pardon? I also use Microsoft C 6.0 which was the
last version to run on a PC XT in 640 KiB.

gcc 3.2.3 will run in under 16 MiB if I switch off optimization.

> > I understand where these people are coming from.
>
> So do I, but I expect it was a typo for 16 GB.

Nope.

> > And I can see the alternative described by that Jeff article
> > I referenced.
> >
> > But my starting position is that I (sort of) can't personally
> > fault the C90 standard, and the assembler code produced
> > by a typical C compiler is exemplary, and that this is the
> > basis for the lingua franca of programming.
>
> Right.

Certainly great to have company!

> >> (And while I don't think that an "appeal to authority" argument has
much
> >> merit, he did say that he found Linux "quite delightful" as a
> >> continuation of UNIX, and I would not expect him to have viewed your OS
> >> ideas as productive.)
> >
> > I'm not asking him to approve my OS ideas. I'm asking him
> > to explain what is wrong with the C90 that he approved of,
> > and whether my mentioned extensions are reasonable.
>
> I'm afraid we're about 13� years too late to expect an answer
> from the man himself, but I could guess at his answers:
>
> (a) nothing;

EXACTLY.

> (b) they make a reasonable library, but there's no reason to
> change C90. If people find the library useful, they will use it
> and the word will spread.
>
> >> But Keith is absolutely correct here.  C90 is C90, and will remain that
> >> way (baring the very unlikely possibility of minor technical
corrections).
> >>
> >> You can make your own libraries, and OS's, and extensions, and
languages
> >> - whatever makes you happy.  (And if you enjoy what you are doing, and
> >> it's not harming anyone, then that's all the reason you need.  You
don't
> >> need approval from anyone else.  Don't let me or anyone else hinder you
> >> enjoying yourself.)  However, nothing that you ever do will be an
> >> extension to C90.
> >
> > You seem to have a different definition of "extension to C90" to me,
then.
>
> Then what do you mean by it? I suspect David thinks you mean an
> update to the ISO C90 document requiring all conforming C
> compilers to adopt your new library. And, like me, Keith and
> David know full well that that ain't gonna happen.

Oh my goodness.

No, no. I'm not expecting that.

You can call it C25 if you want. And C25 is a slight change from C90.

Or C90+

Or possibly C90+- if say gets() is removed.

And other things - like things that SubC is struggling to provide -
could potentially be removed to have multiple "levels" of "minus".

The SQL standard I read in the 1990s had 3 levels.

> > Which is also fine.
> >
> > Regardless, I intend to compete with the ISO committee, and
> > not so much start from scratch, as start from C90.
> >
> > My branch may not appeal to a majority, but I'm not particularly
> > trying to appeal to a majority. I'm interested in appealing to the
> > people who I work with (e.g. author of pdld). And I'm also
> > interested in technical guidance from the majority who likely
> > have more technical skills than me, regardless of whether they
> > agree with my approach/goals or not (spoiler: they don't).
>
> If you want to publish a library, nobody is going to argue
> against you doing so. You can't have too many libraries. (Well, I
> expect you can, but it's hard.)

I can publish lots of libraries for lots of applications.

This wouldn't be one of those.

This would be something fundamental for a portable lingua franca.

I've mentioned before about adding a define for:

#define ESC_STR "\x1b"
#define ESC_CHAR 0x1b

ready for recompiling on an EBCDIC machine to support an
EBCDIC ANSI X3.64 terminal.

So this is another one of those. A portable way of dealing with
a hierarchical file system. Even on a system like MVS/TSO
that doesn't have such a thing, so needs some cautionary
wording.

C90 is full of cautionary wording and a joy to read.

Or to put it another way - if you didn't have time pressure,
and the world was willing to stop writing code circa 1986
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========