Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 16:51:36 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: <20250520094128.340@kylheku.com> References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100hieb$261k5$1@dont-email.me> <100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me> <100i14o$28o7d$1@dont-email.me> <100ia33$2ae8t$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 18:51:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d45dba1130fcf36d483cf83d19a47e6"; logging-data="2456562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4/XqjPvCqQomAyHIn7QnWfV2uGqxr0PA=" User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:b+K4wnkuH4/1a2FgavZvCQe8x48= Bytes: 4325 On 2025-05-20, David Brown wrote: > On 20/05/2025 15:47, Paul Edwards wrote: >> "David Brown" wrote in message >> news:100hs85$27qbn$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 20/05/2025 11:36, Paul Edwards wrote: >>>> "Keith Thompson" wrote in message >>>> news:87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com... >>>>> "Paul Edwards" writes: >>>>> >>> >>>>>> And C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h >>>>> >>>>> C90 will never be extended. It was made obsolete by C99, which was >> made >>>>> obsolete by C11, which was made obsolete by C23. You're free to invent >>>>> your own language based on C90 if you like, but C went in a different >>>>> direction decades ago. >>>> >>>> That depends on your definition of "C". Ritchie is no longer here to >>>> adjudicate whether something close to C90 - in the spirit of the >>>> original C, is the true successor to his language, and which one is >>>> a complete and utter joke of no relation to anything he designed. >>>> >>> >>> Once C was standardised - first by ANSI, then immediately afterwards by >>> ISO - the "definition of C" became clear. >> >> Yes, I agree with that. > > Then why do think that something might depend on someone's "definition > of C" ? The definition of C is clear - it is what the international > standard says it is. You can have other C-like languages, but they are > not C. Sure they are. For instance the GNU C dialect family is C, and so is every vendor's dialect. Only ISO C is ISO C. ISO C is C, and so are some other things. >>> The language is covered by an >>> international standard, so "C" is the language defined by that standard. >>> Thus "C" means "C23" at the moment - each newly published C standard >>> "cancels and replaces" the previous version. >> >> I don't agree with this. > > You don't get to have an opinion on facts. What I said is /fact/ - you > can look at what it says in each new version of the C standards. This > is also normal practice for ISO standards. The Bible says it's the word of God; that don't make it true. C90 and C99 are C languages which continue to be defined and exist. Moreover, every C++ dialect, current and historic, is also a C dialect! > You can have an opinion as to whether or not you like the ISO practices, > but not on what those practices are. The ISO practices don't dictate to the world what is a dialect of C. They do *produce* dialects of C, undeniably. They only produce; they do not destroy dialects of C. It's very hard to destroy languages; civilization still hashaccess to (and interest in) thousands-of-years-old languages. > Again, you don't get to have an opinion on what the ISO committees > practices are - you only get to have an opinion on whether or not you > like them. But it's a fact that ISO cannot cancel anything in the world. All they can do is express the opinion that they consider a document, and what it describes, to be obsolete, not to assert that it doesn't exist. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca