Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 17:26:21 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Message-ID: <867c1os8gi.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> <88adgl-qv2.ln1@otis.foo> <1014hsq$2lg4p$1@dont-email.me> <20250527181041.00004902@yahoo.com> <86jz61tzj1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250528160415.00004552@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 02:26:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef8e131b4cc96276195033b53270f984"; logging-data="2717901"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199F7LW1qypyjLPDDET2D6/OWhgm2ZrGuU=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JN1J2BD/R6BPWoX7J2yeIV6eP4U= sha1:hJ1+xqRur42CW/ZCRRSw2Jc9O4M= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393738 Michael S writes: > On Tue, 27 May 2025 16:16:50 -0700 > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Tue, 27 May 2025 16:23:22 +0200 >>> David Brown 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. Right except the word obsolescence is not appropriate. The release of C99 doesn't make C90 either obsolete or obsolescent. It is possible that a given earlier edition of C will become either obsolete or obsolescent, but it isn't the release of a subsequent edition that does that. Stability happens when a subsequent edition is ratified, regardless of when or whether an earlier edition ever becomes either obsolete or obsolescent. No edition of C is now obsolete, nor do I expect any of them will be during our lifetimes.