Re: Programming in standard c

Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia said:

<snip>
This insistence of getting the WORST system then FORCING all other
people to adapt themselves to that pile of sh...!

No, nobody insists on any such thing, and nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want a system-specific solution, you can have one, because implementors provide them for such tasks as getting the file size in a way meaningful on the system they are targeting. But those who need a truly portable solution are not able to make the kinds of assumptions that you seem to think are reasonable. You may have the luxury of choosing the hardware you will target, but not everyone else has that luxury. You might be able to say "I wouldn't be seen dead using such a stupid system", but other people do have to use systems that you wouldn't be seen dead using. C does not abandon them.


This is exactly the levelling by the worst.

Of course "C does not abandon them". They have just to
1) open the file
2) Read until they hit...
3) EOF!

Then they have the file size. PERIOD. Nothing is "abandoned".

But we could rely on a PORTABLE function to do that instead of
using zig different functions.

What is funny is that precisely the same people that always
get their mouth full of "PORTABILITY IS ALL IMPORTANT"
now argue that improving C by giving more portable functions
is "impossible".

Go figure

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
.