Ralph A. Moeritz said:does anyone have a clue when/if we might see K&R3? K&R2 is starting
to feel a little dusty...
Can anyone recommend any other good printed reference material?
Ralph said:does anyone have a clue when/if we might see K&R3? K&R2 is starting
to feel a little dusty...
Can anyone recommend any other good printed reference material?
(sorry, just adding to your questions)
Similarly, can anyone recommend/comment on any textbooks which
specifically focus on C99, and are not sloppy in their treatment of
new features? Thanks,
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr Chris McDonald E: (e-mail address removed)
Computer Science & Software Engineering W: http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~chris
The University of Western Australia, M002 T: +618 6488 2533
Crawley, Western Australia, 6009 F: +618 6488 1089
Hello,
does anyone have a clue when/if we might see K&R3? K&R2 is starting
to feel a little dusty...
Can anyone recommend any other good printed reference material?
Mark said:Never, according to what i believe one of the authors has posted.
I believe the ACCU website lists a few, as do the FAQ and Welcome
message for this group.
i am new to c++ and am practicing programs. i am trying to write a
program that a user enters a sequence of numbers and the program will
pick out the lowest and highest numbers in the bunch. i will enter
-99 to exit the loop. any one help?
Some Japanese tourists visit Australia on package tours, staying in
Japanese owned hotels, touring in Japanese owned buses and then
shopping in Japanese stores (where once Australians were forbidden to
shop) so they could buy fluffy koalas, kangaroos and such that were
"Made in Japan".
Holy mother of Martha Stewart, this is an awful site... just knowing
there are people in the world like that scares me. I guess FBOFW
wasn't so unrealistically over-the-top after all!
Chris McDonald said:(sorry, just adding to your questions)
Similarly, can anyone recommend/comment on any textbooks which
specifically focus on C99, and are not sloppy in their treatment of
new features? Thanks,
Chris said:This is probably because there are [virtually] no C99 complaint
compilers out there.
Fao said:Chris said:This is probably because there are [virtually] no C99 complaint
compilers out there.
Just possibly, do you think writing a K&R 3rd edition with emphasis on
C99 would encourage more developers to write C99 compliant compilers?
Though it is my understanding that both the C99 TC's will be rolled
into a C05 later this year.
Mark McIntyre said:I believe that one of the committee members posted recently to say
that there were /no/ plans for any new C standard any time soon.
Mark McIntyre said:I believe that one of the committee members posted recently to say
that there were /no/ plans for any new C standard any time soon.
Chris said:This is probably because there are [virtually] no C99 complaint
compilers out there.
Just possibly, do you think writing a K&R 3rd edition with emphasis on
C99 would encourage more developers to write C99 compliant compilers?
<ot_ramble>
For the most part, gcc is C99 compliant enough to suit my needs. Now
I don't know the standard inside and out like some of the regulars
here (e.g. Dan Pop), however, I've found the C99 support to be
satisfactory. Now take that for whatever it's worth --probably
nothing ;-) --, because it's very likely that I'm missing out on at
least a couple of things I could benefit from that I don't even know
about.
</ot_ramble>
Chris Croughton said:Chris said:This is probably because there are [virtually] no C99 complaint
compilers out there.
Just possibly, do you think writing a K&R 3rd edition with emphasis on
C99 would encourage more developers to write C99 compliant compilers?
The problem is that not only the compiler but the library as well needs
to be compliant, and that's where I've found deficiencies (notably in
printf() not supporting the newer numeric sizes like maxint_t and
size_t, and in newer math.h functions being missing). Some of those,
like the math.h functions, are impossible to replace in a portable way
(the nan() functions, for example, depend on knowing the representations
of floating point on your machine).
I've found that gcc is as C99 compliant as I need
(I don't need VLAs,
for instance, which is one area I know it has trouble), but it relies on
the system's library in most cases and that is too variable to be
depended on.
(Yes, there is the Dinkumware library, but in the Real World(tm) people
who write software for organisations aren't always in a position to say
"you must buy this library" and many organisations won't allow 3rd-party
libraries anyway.)
Not that I think a K&R3 would be at all a bad thing, I think it could
only help, I just don't think that on its own it will cause a massed
rush to C99 (indeed, if new programmers read it and then find that their
compiler doesn't support the features they are more likely to give up).
Chris Hills said:so it's not C99 compliant then?
No, it's not. I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
Keith Thompson <kst- said:Chris Hills said:No, it's not. I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise.
I have seen quite a few claim it but you are correct the OP was not
claiming complete compliance.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.