Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: encapsulating directory operations Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 15:29:05 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 27 Message-ID: <87a570jpe6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <100h650$23r5l$1@dont-email.me> <20250520065158.709@kylheku.com> <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> <100ob9f$3n9m3$1@dont-email.me> <100ovse$3ubb5$1@dont-email.me> <87msb3ucmq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100p1u4$3um4p$1@dont-email.me> <10103i7$1jdii$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 00:29:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d058d84d82695863052803485a58bebb"; logging-data="1695090"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4m8iHAoJWOtF3leJFdoBn" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:J1Z/WElOoBOUmWu2bHPnWvsKZdA= sha1:xudT0kYJaPvwqd2ckhLgvNpy0to= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:393594 "Paul Edwards" writes: [...] > E.g. I can't drive an EBCDIC X3.64 terminal unless C90 > provides an ESC define. [...] Of course you can. You can just use '\x27' in your code. It doesn't have to be part of the language standard. If you have an application that, for whatever reason, needs to drive both ASCII and EBCDIC terminals, you can configure it by any means you like to use '\x1b' or '\x27` (command-line argument, environment variable, configuration file, reply from the terminal, whatever). The idea that you can't do that without a constant defined in your language standard is just silly. [...] > That's what C90 is all about after all - making things as > completely portable as possible. [...] No, that's not what C90 was ever about. Very few C programs are completely portable, because they don't need to be. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */