From: james.harris.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 22/07/2021 04:46, Rod Pemberton wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Not exactly. AISI a programming language and a library should be   
   specified separately. They really are very different things.   
      
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Agreed but the context was a different concept. I suggested to Paul that   
   he has a series of calls:   
      
      app calls fwrite   
      fwrite calls fwrite_shim   
      fwrite_shim invokes real_fwrite   
      etc   
      
   In Paul's response he said he wanted every function involved in   
   that to be called "fwrite" too - which is what led to me saying, as   
   above, that I could not think why.   
      
      
      
   --   
   James Harris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)