Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 13:45:16 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <871ps7f8o3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me>
	<101aca9$me2$3@dont-email.me> <101afvt$1sm1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 22:45:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="35ee183a1de7bb444a1794cff417189d";
	logging-data="64426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192GP/xt7XDwNcjBzn7uy3+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DrAuKuMHYwTVcP2749tFJezZh9M=
	sha1:ShzXCUm9C15pNsAfv0T2mB6PGuA=
Bytes: 2859

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 29/05/2025 20:24, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> That's one of the reasons I like C99 and C11, and look forward to
>> C23. Once implemented, they don't change either.
>> I agree with all your are arguments on this,
>
> So far so good. :-)
>
>> except for one - I can't understand why you think C90 is different
>> from later C standards in this regard.
>
> I realise that my reply is going to sound glib, but I can't help that.
>
> I *don't* think C90 is different. I think C90 is exactly the
> same. It's the later standards that are different. Different from C90.

I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make.

Being different is a transitive relationship.  C90 is different
"from later C standards".  You say that C90 is "exactly the same"
-- as what?  As itself?  C99 is also exactly the same as itself.

If the difference is that you personally like C90 and dislike C99
and later editions, that's fine.  De gustibus non est disputandem
(never argue with a guy named Gus).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */