Re: encapsulating directory operations

From	vallor <vallor@cultnix.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c, comp.programming
Subject	Re: encapsulating directory operations
Followup-To	comp.programming
Date	2025-05-26 04:05 +0000
Message-ID	<m9i7k5Fj42gU3@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <87msb3ucmq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100p1u4$3um4p$1@dont-email.me> <10103i7$1jdii$1@dont-email.me> <87a570jpe6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <101069l$1k3nm$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.programming

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 26 May 2025 08:40:50 +1000, "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
wrote in <101069l$1k3nm$1@dont-email.me>:

>> The idea that you can't do that without a constant defined in your
>> language standard is just silly.
> 
> It may be silly from your perspective, but for me it is crucial.

I've x-posted this to comp.programming, and set followup-to there.

I'm wondering why your control-character-handling wouldn't be better
handled with a curses library.  IIRC, back in my DOS days (early 90's),
there was a curses library for DOS.

A quick look around found this: https://pdcurses.org/ ...which
includes DOS support.

If it doesn't handle EBCDIC terminal escapes, consider extending it.

I don't know anything about microemacs, but if it doesn't use a curses-like
library to handle different terminal types, I'd be surprised.  I see that
Linus' uemacs uses curses:

   https://github.com/torvalds/uemacs/blob/master/tcap.c

Again, followup-to comp.programming, as this is definitely off-topic
for comp.lang.c.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.14.8 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
   "Conformity obstructs progress."

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: encapsulating directory operations vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-26 04:05 +0000
  Re: encapsulating directory operations "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2025-05-29 14:31 +1000

csiph-web