Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 20:15:26 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <861prpr6pd.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me> <868qmnv6o9.fsf@linuxsc.com> <100pt3f$3gv2$1@dont-email.me> <86v7pqtvyf.fsf@linuxsc.com> <100rmu1$hhhm$2@dont-email.me> <868qmgucv5.fsf@linuxsc.com> <101720n$38o2p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 05:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="644997928adcdf77600eadd3165b82ed";
	logging-data="2599016"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QWkCdoLmPezZmzWtYqjtfqqS21RG33Fs="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RQ0dZg0ugc1PQkZI1E2574VGBtk=
	sha1:QPRoWw1VNjgP5IYAGOHOxPO21fU=

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 28/05/2025 13:41, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/05/2025 10:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C90 will never be extended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And for that reason it will always be valuable.  Stability
>>>>>>> has a value all its own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C99 is just as stable as C90, and has been for well over a
>>>>>> decade.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but it's a different stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were the same stable, it would be C90.
>>>>>
>>>>> C99 isn't C90, therefore it isn't the same stable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you tell me C99 is a rock, I will not doubt you.  But the C90
>>>>> rock it most certainly isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Now you're being silly.
>>>
>>> No, sir.  If you want to play that game, you can play it with
>>> yourself.  I know that you are perfectly capable of polite
>>> conversation, so I see no reason to endure the opposite.
>>
>> I don't think I'm being impolite.
>
> Then we are again in disagreement, and it seems obvious that it would
> be foolishly optimistic of me to expect to be able to resolve the
> matter.  I'll tell Thunderbird to leave it there.

Apparently my words were taken with a meaning I didn't intend.
I'm sorry that this happened.