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: Tue, 27 May 2025 16:16:50 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 50 Message-ID: <86jz61tzj1.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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 01:16:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3dc6e1cbcae6a9bb42602b2ab11ee615"; logging-data="3021509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18T2snyMD2ttC0g4n8AMp2Ecs49Cmg9n6U=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VNuVyU63+DtP2dQhjivXsZ/HTpI= sha1:M4M72s31+krLTc4NPaqrEs02slk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393614 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.