Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 16:04:15 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <20250528160415.00004552@yahoo.com>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me>
	<868qmnv6o9.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<88adgl-qv2.ln1@otis.foo>
	<1014hsq$2lg4p$1@dont-email.me>
	<20250527181041.00004902@yahoo.com>
	<86jz61tzj1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 15:04:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ca3ff2ead7e156810032ce26cf7bfe4";
	logging-data="3382004"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BZZIavkECS7TuMe5OIbLU77xYYJ9Ux2U="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D52qK2CJad+53C9ozFn7CgiYdus=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)

On Tue, 27 May 2025 16:16:50 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 27 May 2025 16:23:22 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 26/05/2025 07:19, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Groovy hepcat Tim Rentsch was jivin' in comp.lang.c on Fri, 23 May
> >>> 2025 10:43 pm.  It's a cool scene!  Dig it.
> >>>  
> >>>> C99 is just as stable as C90, and has been for well over a
> >>>> decade.  
> >>>
> >>>    Methinks Tim is having trouble with his arithmetic.  Either
> >>> that or he doesn't know what year it is now. :)
> >>>    C99 was ratified in 1999, over two and a half decades ago.
> >>>  
> >>>> C11 is just as stable as C90, and has been for just slightly
> >>>> less than a decade.  
> >>>
> >>>    And C11 was ratified in 2011, no?  That was almost a decade
> >>> and a half ago.  
> >>
> >> Tim was, I believe, taking into account the time it took for common
> >> implementations of C compilers and libraries to have complete and
> >> generally bug-free support for the standards, and for these
> >> implementations to become common.  C99 was published in 1999, but
> >> it took quite a while before most people programming in C could
> >> happily use C99 without worrying about the tool support being
> >> "experimental" or not as mature as C90 support.  
> >
> > I believe that your belief is wrong.
> > It is much more likely that Tim took into account defect reports.
> > Here is the list of C11 defect reports with the last dated 2016:
> > https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/summary.htm
> >
> > I did not find similar list for C99.  However believing Tim I would
> > guess that the last change in C99 document was made ~15 years ago.  
> 
> You are partly right.  Besides defect reports, there are TCs.  And
> there is always the possibility of future TCs, future defect
> reports, or future changes for any ISO C standard while it is
> still current.
> 
> To be as stable as C90, a C standard would need to be immune to
> the possibility of such future changes.
> 
> I take C99 to have reached this level of stability in 2011, when
> it was superseded by C11.  I take C11 to have reached this level
> of stability in 2017, when it was superseded by C17.

Got it. Stability occurs when the standards is fenced from changes by
presence of the next edition. 
Stability by obsolescence.