Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #393426 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-20 16:06 +1000 |
| Last post | 2025-05-24 22:10 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 343 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:06 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-20 07:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:33 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:00 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 06:49 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 07:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-08-17 21:04 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-18 00:30 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-19 18:09 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-21 19:51 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 05:04 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 14:13 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 22:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 19:07 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 23:15 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 09:26 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 00:44 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-24 02:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 20:10 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-23 19:29 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-24 00:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-31 08:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-31 21:42 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-01 07:58 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-01 07:43 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-02 09:35 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-02 15:24 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-06-02 19:14 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-02 23:54 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-03 01:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-03 19:41 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-03 18:25 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 10:29 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-06 14:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 19:10 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-06 17:24 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-06 19:26 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 04:04 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 06:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 19:58 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 18:31 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 02:43 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 21:22 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 03:56 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-07 23:57 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 10:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-08 08:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:02 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-08 15:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:18 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-09 09:20 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 12:58 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-08 16:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-08 17:45 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 03:21 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 07:13 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-09 10:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 13:01 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:52 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 00:28 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:05 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 06:51 +0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-09 07:59 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 13:04 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-06-07 23:12 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 17:11 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-08 16:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 11:48 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-08 22:09 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 14:01 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 17:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 15:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 19:45 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-09 18:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-09 20:39 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-10 07:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-10 13:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-06-10 14:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 12:08 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-10 20:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-06-09 19:22 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-09 18:59 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 09:51 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-03 00:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 14:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-10 14:36 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 16:40 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-10 16:52 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 23:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 07:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-11 05:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-11 13:41 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 17:33 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-12 01:33 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 02:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 10:33 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 13:42 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 13:55 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 15:05 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-05-20 14:09 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:15 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:48 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 16:02 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 01:28 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 05:43 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 14:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:32 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-24 06:54 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-28 05:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-28 14:10 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-11 20:15 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-05-26 15:19 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-27 16:23 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-27 18:10 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-27 19:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-27 16:16 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-28 16:04 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-28 22:54 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-29 10:21 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-06 17:16 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-06 17:26 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-27 16:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 19:36 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 14:23 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 23:47 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 15:37 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 01:11 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 16:43 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:15 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 22:50 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:11 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-20 22:40 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 05:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:06 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 09:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-20 18:19 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 17:43 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 17:14 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 18:20 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 17:51 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 19:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 19:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:09 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 16:51 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 16:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 18:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-20 17:48 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-20 19:34 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:51 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 05:31 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:08 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 11:28 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 17:00 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 16:37 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 16:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-21 20:21 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-22 06:37 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-22 17:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 10:27 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:46 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-21 16:46 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 07:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 15:02 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 15:06 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 08:09 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 00:12 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:25 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 17:58 -0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-20 13:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 00:12 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 14:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 08:38 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 09:09 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 00:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 10:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 01:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 16:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 09:57 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 22:41 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:41 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:06 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 20:58 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:10 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 15:32 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 09:16 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:38 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:12 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:34 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 09:01 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-05-25 23:25 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:28 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 21:27 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:08 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 22:20 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:43 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 07:54 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:29 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:40 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-26 03:29 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 11:46 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-26 09:43 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-26 17:16 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-26 04:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 08:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-26 03:37 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Harnden <richard.harnden@gmail.invalid> - 2025-05-23 16:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 17:50 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 16:57 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 18:00 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 17:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 11:10 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 20:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 21:35 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 21:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-23 23:13 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-24 06:46 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:27 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 09:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 09:37 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-29 06:11 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 13:41 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 15:08 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 17:36 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-29 17:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 18:51 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:31 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:29 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 13:38 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-29 12:55 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 18:48 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 03:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 11:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 11:54 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 16:02 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 16:26 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 17:42 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-07-01 10:09 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-30 18:04 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-29 21:24 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-29 23:24 +0300
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 21:27 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 13:45 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 22:09 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-29 21:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-29 22:40 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:18 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 22:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-04 19:23 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 13:05 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 00:00 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-04 17:30 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Josef Möllers <josef@invalid.invalid> - 2025-06-04 20:48 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 21:09 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-05 08:18 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 04:58 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-04 19:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 05:24 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-04 21:30 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 22:38 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 19:31 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-06-05 08:32 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 19:28 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-06-05 20:25 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-06-06 03:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-04 23:22 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-04 23:48 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 07:18 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:50 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 00:05 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-30 17:37 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-05-30 17:25 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:39 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-30 17:32 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-30 02:46 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-30 03:42 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-30 07:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-23 21:10 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 21:31 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-23 22:05 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-24 01:27 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 08:52 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 13:35 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-10 21:34 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 15:09 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 01:16 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-06-10 19:11 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 15:23 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-06-11 11:57 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-06-11 15:32 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 04:39 -0800
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 08:44 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 08:06 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 18:24 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 02:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 19:31 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 13:59 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:52 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 01:18 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 09:48 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-26 00:15 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-26 11:50 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-29 07:26 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-30 18:47 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 02:21 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-20 22:49 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 20:44 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-21 12:06 +0100
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 11:15 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-21 21:02 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-21 19:49 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:38 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-20 22:26 -0400
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-21 03:32 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:50 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 00:03 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-05-22 02:20 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-22 02:53 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 22:14 -0700
Re: encapsulating directory operations Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-08-17 22:34 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-05-21 21:19 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-23 01:17 +0000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-21 04:35 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-21 19:45 +1000
Re: encapsulating directory operations Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-21 17:07 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-22 20:34 +0200
Re: encapsulating directory operations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-24 22:10 -0700
Page 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ecwj1vy9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #393426 |
"Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
> Someone (Jean-Marc) wrote some "folder" routines which I like a lot.
> You can see them here:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/hwzip/folder.c
>
> And in essence, when you read from a directory, the only
> thing you get is the filename. If it is actually a subdirectory,
> then that is indicated with a "/" at the end of the filename.
>
> Other things like size and creation date are not available,
> and C90 does not guarantee that such concepts even
> exist. C90 does guarantee that files exist though.
C90, like all later standards, supports file operations only in hosted
implementations, not in freestanding implementations. Even on a
conforming hosted implementation, every call to fopen() could fail.
[...]
> And C90 (etc) could potentially be extended to include a folder.h
C90 will never be extended. It was made obsolete by C99, which was made
obsolete by C11, which was made obsolete by C23. You're free to invent
your own language based on C90 if you like, but C went in a different
direction decades ago.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393428 |
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. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 19:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <100hj0f$264f0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393430 |
"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message news:100hi99$260c5$1@dont-email.me... > 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. Yeah, well said. I've been working with C90 for almost 40 years. Maybe I'm a slow learner, but so far I haven't seen anything wrong with it. It's good enough to write an entire OS and supporting tools - quibbling aside. Maybe in the next 40 years I will learn enough about languages that I can see why it so desperately needs a revamp as per C99 etc. In the meantime, I'm more interested in solving this problem that someone else wrote about: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-leave-a-job-as-a-software-engineer/answer/ Jeff-Sturm-2 (I had a similar complaint, but never wrote it down or had the ability to express it as well as this guy did). The problems in the IT industry aren't going to be solved by a new version of ISO C that supports edge-triggered, pre and post-emptive multi-hyper-threaded apps with parallel predictive circularly-redundant cyber-stalked channel-driven variables or whatever they're peddling these days. They're going to be solved by people actually understanding the systems they support. And understanding some other very very basic stuff. Like even understanding the definition of "broken". "No-one else (that I've spoken to in the last 5 minutes) is complaining" is not the definition of "working fine". Nor is "the IT department didn't inform us of any outage". BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 13:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <100hprs$276m9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393430 |
On 20/05/2025 11:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: > 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. > Sure. Similarly, C99, C11 and even C17 are stable and are valuable because of that stability. It's good that developers have, to a fair extent at least, an option to pick their stable point for their projects. It is actually not the fact that C has had stability in its standards that is valuable. Python 1.0 has not changed - it is stable. What makes C different as a development language is two things - modern tools continue to support old standards, and new standards are, to a very large extent, compatible with the old standards. And this also means that "extending C90" (or any other C standard) is an oxymoron, counter to the whole point of standards, and the antithesis of why C has remained popular (or at least useful) for so long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250520065428.492@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #393430 |
On 2025-05-20, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > 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. Windows Vista will never be extended either. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 15:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100i26d$28ksr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393437 |
On 20/05/2025 14:55, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-05-20, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> 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. > > Windows Vista will never be extended either. Certainly the version on one of my ancient laptops never will be. Indeed, I deprive it of an Internet connection for precisely that reason. Vista is what it is, and has no business changing. If I want to change the OS I'll buy a bloody CD-ROM. Operating systems have least excuse of all for turning rock into sand. It's harder to build stable software if it has to sit on top of amorphous gloop. Did I say 'harumph' yet? No? HARUMPH! So there. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <100i2fe$290u1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393438 |
On Tue, 20 May 2025 15:05:01 +0100 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled: >Operating systems have least excuse of all for turning rock into >sand. It's harder to build stable software if it has to sit on >top of amorphous gloop. On a related note, I can still compile unix C code I wrote in the 90s at uni without any changes on linux and mac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 00:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <100i2qk$293oo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393439 |
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote in message news:100i2fe$290u1$1@dont-email.me... > On Tue, 20 May 2025 15:05:01 +0100 > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wibbled: > >Operating systems have least excuse of all for turning rock into > >sand. It's harder to build stable software if it has to sit on > >top of amorphous gloop. > > On a related note, I can still compile unix C code I wrote in the 90s at uni > without any changes on linux and mac. And I can write code I wrote that complied with the ANSI 89 draft available circa 1987 on Windows 10. I can't run Windows 11 on the computer I smuggled out of Communist China (with Zhaoxin processor). BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 00:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <100i4nv$29ipt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393438 |
"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message news:100i26d$28ksr$1@dont-email.me... > On 20/05/2025 14:55, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > On 2025-05-20, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Windows Vista will never be extended either. > > Certainly the version on one of my ancient laptops never will be. > Indeed, I deprive it of an Internet connection for precisely that > reason. Vista is what it is, and has no business changing. If I > want to change the OS I'll buy a bloody CD-ROM. My main development machine/environment is Windows 2000 which I run under Virtualbox currently (under Windows 10 currently, but previously Linux), but did at one point run on a Pinebook Pro (ARM64). Windows 2000 was the last version to not require "activation". It also runs OS/2 1.0 programs. I don't deny it access to the internet - and in fact, this message is coming to you directly from the Windows 2000 system running Outlook Express. I can't connect to many sites though. But that in itself is a warning to not rely on the internet as you know it being perpetual. Enron suddenly collapsed without warning too. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-20 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100i5hm$29du3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393443 |
On 20/05/2025 15:48, Paul Edwards wrote: <snip> > My main development machine/environment is Windows 2000 Would everybody please close their eyes and bow their heads? 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Thank you. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-21 01:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <100i73b$2a4q9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393444 |
"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote in message news:100i5hm$29du3$2@dont-email.me... > On 20/05/2025 15:48, Paul Edwards wrote: > > <snip> > > > My main development machine/environment is Windows 2000 > Would everybody please close their eyes and bow their heads? It's also capable of running Visual Studio 2005, which means I can target x64 processors, even though I can't run the executables themselves. Although I will normally use cc64 as my x64 compiler, which I can also run as a 32-bit program. I expect to investigate mm64 one day, but still have other priorities. I don't often need to run x64 executables, but when I do, I copy them to my Windows 10 system, that Windows 2000 is running under. And here are my size constraints: 2025-05-14 06:15 AM 20,401,095,168 win2000.vhd 2025-05-14 06:15 AM 19,327,353,344 pauldata.vhd I think my Pinebook Pro was 64 GB storage. If I give up Visual Studio 2005, I can reduce the win2k down to about 4 GB I think, meaning I can cope with a 32 GB storage machine. Note that the VHD can be mounted on Windows 10 natively, but I don't currently need to do that. I instead have a shared folder c:\w2kshare on my Windows 10 system, and something from Virtualbox installed on the w2k system so that I have a Z drive. I'm officially "apocalypse-ready". The Zhaoxin processor will make me Last Man Standing if I backed the wrong horse. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-23 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868qmnv6o9.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393430 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. C11 is just as stable as C90, and has been for just slightly less than a decade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-23 14:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100pt3f$3gv2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393565 |
On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-23 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86v7pqtvyf.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393566 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. The adjective "stable" means "unchanging". C99 and C11 are just as unchanging as C90, and so just as stable. If you want to say C90 has some other quality that C99 or C11 doesn't, by all means do so. But don't play word games or distort the English language in an effort to make C90 something it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-24 06:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100rmu1$hhhm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393584 |
On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-28 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868qmgucv5.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393586 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-28 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <101720n$38o2p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393616 |
On 28/05/2025 13:41, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> >>>> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. Then we are again in disagreement, and it seems obvious that it would be foolishly optimistic of me to expect to be able to resolve the matter. I'll tell Thunderbird to leave it there. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-11 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <861prpr6pd.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393618 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 28/05/2025 13:41, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 24/05/2025 06:32, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 23/05/2025 13:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> 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. > > Then we are again in disagreement, and it seems obvious that it would > be foolishly optimistic of me to expect to be able to resolve the > matter. I'll tell Thunderbird to leave it there. Apparently my words were taken with a meaning I didn't intend. I'm sorry that this happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-26 15:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <88adgl-qv2.ln1@otis.foo> |
| In reply to | #393565 |
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.
--
----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-27 16:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1014hsq$2lg4p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393609 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web