From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:58:30 +0100
James Harris wrote:
> On 19/07/2021 10:23, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 11:19:53 PM UTC+10, James Harris wrote:
> >> fwrite is specified by POSIX, although I should probably have
> >> generalised Linux into POSIX rather than just into Unix.
> >
> > That transfers the question - why did you mention POSIX?
> > This has nothing to do with POSIX.
> >
> > fwrite is specified by C90.
>
> Is it? That's surprising. I could imagine it being mentioned as being
> part of a/the standard C library but I personally wouldn't have
> thought it would be part of the language and I could imagine some
> implementations of C not having it. No matter.
>
Um ... Did I read that correctly?
Are you legitimately saying that the C standards, e.g., C89/C90. C99,
C11, don't also include the C library as part of the actual C
specifications?
> >> I can't think why you might want multiple levels of software all
> >> to have the same name. I'm not arguing that you should do
> >> otherwise. That's your choice. But it does seem unnecessary and
> >> confusing.
> >
> > I think it's very neat. If you want to write 1 byte to a
> > FAT partition at offset 372, you can use fseek and
> > fputc, rather than fwrite.
>
> On the face of it I cannot see from that why you would want multiple
> functions all to be called fwrite.
>
What? ...
Clearly, "multiple functions all to be called [the exact same thing]" is
a concise statement of the fundamental concept of overloading from
object-oriented programming languages.
--
Liberals preach diversity, equity, and inclusion, but engage in
misandry, are racist against whites, promote hatred of conservatives.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
