Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 16:26:04 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <101cimc$hqle$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <20250520065158.709@kylheku.com>
 <100i2la$292le$1@dont-email.me> <87a5770xjw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100j09o$2f04b$1@dont-email.me> <87tt5ezx9y.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100j4t3$2foah$1@dont-email.me> <87ldqqzfj0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100kak8$2q0s6$1@dont-email.me> <87a575zvmb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <100o3sc$3ll6t$1@dont-email.me> <87bjrkxonr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <b7fb8fc41d43807641e673e1ca1d3baf69f5766f@i2pn2.org>
 <87iklrtcys.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250523132019.763@kylheku.com>
 <100qm76$7shk$2@dont-email.me> <20250523140729.787@kylheku.com>
 <100qru0$9mjb$2@dont-email.me> <101929h$3olom$4@dont-email.me>
 <10196gn$3pd33$1@dont-email.me> <10199t2$3q3mn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1019kgf$3s5co$1@dont-email.me> <101bt9c$dckn$2@dont-email.me>
 <101c2p8$eeca$2@dont-email.me> <101cdpa$gnh8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:26:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98821b3aa39a3256f5c8c5614ee01f20";
	logging-data="584366"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+L1MmRjfpofQNChZSXdBDqAiv+1cezixdbPj9+PLZV6Q=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GGdbzl3bz/5a9BzUQFJoeCnBUIM=
In-Reply-To: <101cdpa$gnh8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2616

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.

This is undoubtedly the case.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within