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: Wed, 28 May 2025 05:41:02 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: <868qmgucv5.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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 14:41:04 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3dc6e1cbcae6a9bb42602b2ab11ee615"; logging-data="3413245"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vdWVkYiGJ57VSvb/7qDCb6p5ULWYSbNU=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:F4xIva/c2a823zylWnSLE+j3uVI= sha1:kdAyl+DuODuEyHnWkV0cYWaTHmY= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393616 Richard Heathfield writes: > On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield writes: >> >>> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Richard Heathfield 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. I think your comments were deliberately playing games with language, to make a point that has nothing to do with what I said. I don't think it's rude or even inconsiderate to point that out. If someone wants to say it could have been pointed out in a better way, okay, probably it could have been, but it wasn't meant as a personal comment, and I think that was evident from the rest of what I said (which was left out in your followup message).