Need suggestions for C links.

[Charles Krug]

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

The Standard is a bit much as a "Daily Reference." It's more on the
order of "WHEN you need it, you need it rather badly, but usually a
brief summary suffices.

I have access to a legit PDF, but I don't wade in every time I need to
figure out why my mallocs are linting.

 

[Grumble]

HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

http://www.google.com/search?q=edit+pdf

Results 1 - 100 of about 75,400,000 for edit pdf. (0.14 seconds)

 

[Richard G. Riley]

PDF readers have search facilities built in.


Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
numbers?

HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

PDF is editable.

Interesting thread : I despise PDF with a passion. When properly
implemented, a PDF is ok. But most I've used plain suck - navigation
is a nightmare and printing invariably buggy.

As it happens, the C standard one is a good one IMO.

 

[Jordan Abel]

Here's an extract from my copy of C99:

ÁP;£^]~[ó$~Cj˽pk§y|
!ë^AElzõü«Ôî`I0Ï(~I~]öX~HLÖ^BrW&^O^M.~\±[/À¨òñm)sôg~L^F~H~CÀj^Vu0sO(³¬~^-ÀÝ|
&£~A~NJÞ~[é½Ð\øð}òÈmÙ"é~Yu@W2iPÎÙ«³Ùq¥^EDï-+\ä~H4ÊãÏw^KÖÁãíÃ^];Î~Dìå~R4`^@0oÊ00~H^Bo~IÅÏ~Bàg^^Böd¦^O8^Cìô^A^BJô;~WÐ沨°^HAä~I~Oß^D¼^_øYÞ^U/©ÈlHÚ~NÅ)^Vt^E~G¨Å^GN=§¡yÄ+C~RJ¾^]~BQ"f~FE*j*ëg^CÍM0zÏÝ:9tå^ZøþàÕµ£i¹k÷Ð˹n<:Áy8¡~I^CSKåWJÐ×~^~Rô^[Å(~D~Y~W9~L­
aóM~[^E¹^G³Cõ5~Z¡^Ç®X¹^MA~Q^C~T\õRC^UÔN²E¼ÒsßxÆÁÓDLÔ

Nice. Can you read that? I can't. I can't even pronounce it.

Just because it's a binary format doesn't mean it's non-portable.

Here's an extract from my copy of c89:

^_~K^H^@ÚX_C^@^CÔý{c^Tǵ/^Lÿ_~_¢6Þ;hðh~D.\^L¶ó`~Pc^R~LÙ~@·s~
Nã^]·4=R~GÑ´2=~C~P^]ûëì¯ù®kÕªêê~QÀÉ{Î!ÁHÝÕu¯Uëú[Þû­×§Mçgí²¾h
~WS^O?/Ú~U¯üyµ\ùvæ^_~]ÕËæ¸ZøçÕªi^WÕÜ¿ZU~Ki^Eeá#÷t^Aÿ=£WþÕe·ª
Ï:¿½½í_,Û~SeuvÖ,Nü³jq²®Njÿxìÿ¼?ùýï^?¿½ûÉýû~S~QsÞoj| \~IïÎ

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

PDF readers have search facilities built in.

Sure - but I still can't grep the darn thing.

Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
numbers?

If you care enough (and let's face it, for an international standard you
probably *do* care enough), just produce an MD5 hash which you stick
somewhere well-known. Easy.

HTML is editable and PDF is not

Oh, PDF is editable all right. It's just a lot lot lot more awkward to do -
which is a real pain.

which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

I'd have thought an even more major advantage of HTML would be that you can
distribute it really easily over the World Wide Web, since browsers already
render HTML just fine (otherwise they wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no
means all of them are equipped to render PDF.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

Just because it's a binary format doesn't mean it's non-portable.

It means that the number of existing applications capable of processing the
document in a meaningful way is significantly lower than if it were in a
text format. If it were in a text format, it could be meaningfully
processed by vim, sed, grep, emacs, head, tail, any of a gazillion other
Unix/Linux utilities, Visual Studio, Brief, Multiedit, edlin, the Borland
IDE, RHIDE, any of a brazillion other Windows utilities, just about any
word processor, CodeWarrior, the ISPF/PDF editor, and so on and so on and
so on, ad nauseam.

Here's an extract from my copy of c89:

^_~K^H^@ÚX_C^@^CÔý{c^Tǵ/^Lÿ_~_¢6Þ;hðh~D.\^L¶ó`~Pc^R~LÙ~@·s~
Nã^]·4=R~GÑ´2=~C~P^]ûëì¯ù®kÕªêê~QÀÉ{Î!ÁHÝÕu¯Uëú[Þû­×§Mçgí²¾h
~WS^O?/Ú~U¯üyµ\ùvæ^_~]ÕËæ¸ZøçÕªi^WÕÜ¿ZU~Ki^Eeá#÷t^Aÿ=£WþÕe·ª
Ï:¿½½í_,Û~SeuvÖ,Nü³jq²®Njÿxìÿ¼?ùýï^?¿½ûÉýû~S~QsÞoj| \~IïÎ

But to get that, I bet you had to /try/ at least a little bit.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

The Standard is a bit much as a "Daily Reference." It's more on the
order of "WHEN you need it, you need it rather badly, but usually a
brief summary suffices.

If you're familiar with the standard, you can easily use it as a
daily reference. It's the only C reference I use on a regular
basis.

 

[MrG{DRGN}]

-Snip

I agree - but I wasn't gunning for you. Sorry if you got caught in the
crossfire. ;-)

Fair enough Richard. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your intent.

Take care

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I'd have thought an even more major advantage of HTML would be
that you can distribute it really easily over the World Wide Web,
since browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Netocrat]

(e-mail address removed)> writes [...]
You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
available.

It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.

I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
not, their websites are out of date.

I stock the hard copy version

Oh, I didn't twig from your previous post that you actually sell it. Do
you have a link that could be added to the wiki page? I searched
through your site a bit without turning one up, bar an invitation to
email you for a copy in your column vol 11.7.

I also noticed that in that column you mention the decline of compiler
certification due to expensiveness. There's recently been suggestion in
c.s.c that a test suite for compilers be part of the C Standard as it is
for Ada's Standard, to avoid the perceived meaninglessness of the "one
program" requirement of 5.2.4 - is that something you'd advocate?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.
Most inconvenient. Obviously it's the fault of the /browser/ (although it
redeems itself somewhat by restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is
restarted), but it does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my
antipathy for PDF.

 

[Richard G. Riley]

CBFalconer said:


Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.
Most inconvenient. Obviously it's the fault of the /browser/ (although it
redeems itself somewhat by restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is
restarted), but it does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my
antipathy for PDF.

Much as I dislike PDF, it is quite clear that your browser is either
incapable of loading a PDF plugin or your OS/Desktop is badly
configured since millions of others seem to use PDF just fine.

My own antipathy towards PDF wouldnt lead me into besmirching it at every
opportunity especially when it is clear that your lack of a PDF viewer is a
personal choice. The crash when you choose not to download notwithstanding.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard G. Riley said:

Much as I dislike PDF, it is quite clear that your browser is either
incapable of loading a PDF plugin or your OS/Desktop is badly
configured since millions of others seem to use PDF just fine.

Well, it's the former. It's a crap browser, I agree.

My own antipathy towards PDF wouldnt lead me into besmirching it at every
opportunity especially when it is clear that your lack of a PDF viewer is
a personal choice. The crash when you choose not to download
notwithstanding.

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

 

[Richard G. Riley]

Richard G. Riley said:


Well, it's the former. It's a crap browser, I agree.


No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

That will be a relief to PDF authors everywhere

In all seriousness, PDF is about there. I make no assumptions on your
HW/OS so cant really say which browser is best for you, but I must say
that I find firefox 1.5 on Linux rock solid with PDF these days, and
certainly dont shy from reading them as in the past. Broadband, of
course helps.

Hell, since I got a HP laserjet I can almost say that I like
postscript too: and *that*, at home, was always a very sore subject...

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer said:

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF
document, my browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe
software to read it. Of course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and
the browser promptly crashes. Most inconvenient. Obviously it's
the fault of the /browser/ (although it redeems itself somewhat by
restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is+ restarted), but it
does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my antipathy for PDF.

Well, that is the fault of your browser and/or your configuration
of it. I use Firefox for browsing, and it has been told to simply
download all pdfs to a disk file. If I wish I can then read it
with acroreader or ghostscript at my leisure, or even immediately.
Firefox seems quite solid and safe, and available for most
systems. I could configure Netscape 4.7x the same way. Don't know
about the standard security leak for Windoze.

The download mechanism displays the length, and is easily aborted.
It also avoids downloading twice (once for display, again to a
file) if you want to keep the file.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Keith Thompson]

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

(I'm not really responding to this particular followup, just jumping
into the discussion.)

PDF and HTML serve two different, but related, purposes. PDF, unlike
HTML, allows the author to control the page layout of the document
(try referring to "page 42" of an HTML document). If I decide I want
a hard copy of the standard, I can be sure it will look like your hard
copy of the standard. A PDF document is also conveniently monolithic;
an HTML version of the standard would be made up of multiple
individual documents, and would probably have to be made available in
a zip file or something similar. Searching a bundle of HTML pages is,
in some ways, more difficult than search a single PDF file (though
with the latter you're limited to using PDF-specific tools). Since
previous ISO standards have tended to be available only on paper, PDF
is arguably the most logical electronic format.

(The counter argument is that it's the information, not the page
layout, that's important, and page numbers are irrelevant given
consistent section and paragraph numbers.)

I find PDF documents to be reasonably useful in my environment (Adobe
Reader 7 on a 1600x1200 monitor); I understand that that's not the
case for everyone.

Also, Adobe Reader does have a "Save as text" feature, and I suspect
other PDF readers do as well. Some PDFs may have security features
that prevent this from working (my copy of the actual C99 standard
isn't handy at the moment), but it does work for n1124.pdf (C99 + TC1
+ TC2), which is my main language reference at the moment.

 

[Jordan Abel]

(I'm not really responding to this particular followup, just jumping
into the discussion.)

PDF and HTML serve two different, but related, purposes. PDF, unlike
HTML, allows the author to control the page layout of the document
(try referring to "page 42" of an HTML document). If I decide I want
a hard copy of the standard, I can be sure it will look like your hard
copy of the standard. A PDF document is also conveniently monolithic;
an HTML version of the standard would be made up of multiple
individual documents, and would probably have to be made available in
a zip file or something similar. Searching a bundle of HTML pages is,
in some ways, more difficult than search a single PDF file (though
with the latter you're limited to using PDF-specific tools). Since
previous ISO standards have tended to be available only on paper, PDF
is arguably the most logical electronic format.

(The counter argument is that it's the information, not the page
layout, that's important, and page numbers are irrelevant given
consistent section and paragraph numbers.)

I find PDF documents to be reasonably useful in my environment (Adobe
Reader 7 on a 1600x1200 monitor); I understand that that's not the
case for everyone.

Also, Adobe Reader does have a "Save as text" feature, and I suspect
other PDF readers do as well. Some PDFs may have security features
that prevent this from working (my copy of the actual C99 standard
isn't handy at the moment), but it does work for n1124.pdf (C99 + TC1
+ TC2), which is my main language reference at the moment.

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

Yes; it's an Alpine Race Results and Penalty Report.

A Google search got about half a dozen hits, but as far as I can tell
none of them lead to a plain-text copy of n1124.pdf.

It's easy enough to generate your own *if* you have the right
software; I decline to speculate on how making such a copy publicly
available would interact with copyright law.

 

[Pedro Graca]

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't,

out of interest, why not?*

so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.

You could consider a different browser. I never experience this w/
Firefox...

Mark McIntyre


*I admit to being quite annoyed with Acrobat Readers' "autoupdate
feature" which told me I needed a patch and then surripticiously
installed something called "adobe photoshop album starter edition"
which modified all my image and video viewing / editing / managing
associations without asking me, so that my scanner now tries to use
this rubbish instead of the proper OCR and image handling software I
paid good money for.

Luckily I keep all my features numbered for just such an occasion, and
application of a Really Big Naily Stick sorted it out.