Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 23 May 2025 22:32:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <86v7pqtvyf.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 07:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34797294a24bb7c5bba48f4b74fba193";
	logging-data="576248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x51E2Yij4nKJmDt//cCM8CK6qutyNZms="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VuWTS1Qxv91tDydOqj5NUIgh//E=
	sha1:CC20HIJBOV9S31zrvPSRs8wvNPc=
Bytes: 2096

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.  The adjective "stable" means "unchanging".
C99 and C11 are just as unchanging as C90, and so just as stable.

If you want to say C90 has some other quality that C99 or C11
doesn't, by all means do so.  But don't play word games or distort
the English language in an effort to make C90 something it isn't.