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: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:45:26 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <100k7bs$2p8hc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <100je5c$2l1b2$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 11:45:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7d0475afa27e16a08c1e6e0485f4228c";
	logging-data="2925100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197XomGyRaA99NRjIC/KF9G3zAvuulcbVs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NgKsXGQX+fTPTkVwmAU7e18c4JI=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

"Janis Papanagnou" <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:100je5c$2l1b2$1@dont-email.me...

> certainly useful to be supported as library functions. And I'd
> write and provide directory abstractions also as add-on library
> functions (as opposed to part of a language; but my opinion on
> that is not strong). Historically other languages even missed to
>
> To sum up; on the way from the OS entity to the user interface
> there's various abstraction levels. Depending on the service I'd
> like to provide I'd probably choose different abstraction layers.
> I _don't_ think that a directory abstraction should be *inherent*
> part of the C language, but if necessary provided as a _library_.

Sorry if I didn't specify that clearly.

Of course I expect the directory handling to be in a library.

Just as fopen() is in the library section of the C90 standard.

The question is whether at least "half baked" directories
should/could have been added the C90.

It would have violated the "existing practice" spirit (which
doesn't bother me - note - I failed to explicitly state this),
but it wouldn't have violated the "portable" spirit.

So long as you are careful and keep it "half-baked", you
can have a portable file system in the spirit of C90
portability.

There were reasons this couldn't be done in 1990 (actually,
it is C89 that matters here, so 1989 - and in fact, it was a
static draft even earlier than that). But I wish to do it now,
belatedly.

BFN. Paul.