boolean values and the FAQ

[jacob navia]

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)

[Dan Pop]

In <cd**********@n ews-reader2.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the C programming community at large.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[jacob navia]

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.c h> a écrit dans le message de
news:cd******** **@sunnews.cern .ch...

In <cd**********@n ews-reader2.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the C programming community at large.

So what?

The current standard is C99. Period.

The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.

[Dan Pop]

In <cd**********@n ews-reader1.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.c h> a écrit dans le message de
news:cd******* ***@sunnews.cer n.ch...

In <cd**********@n ews-reader2.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia"<ja***@jacob.r emcomp.fr> writes:

>The section about boolean values should mention
><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the C programming community at large.

So what?

So this is what people writing C code care about. When the importance of
portable programming penetrates your thick skull, you'll understand why.
The current standard is C99. Period.
So what?!? You're not posting to comp.std.c, are you?
The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
Sez who? The FAQ maintainer obviously thinks otherwise, as the [ISO]
tag means:

International Organization for Standardization , ISO 9899:1990
(see question 11.2). [ISO]
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.

Who are you to decide what the FAQ *should* do? Start your own FAQ and
put whatever you want there. Then see if anyone else cares about it.
Your C tutorial has already been a tremendous success in c.l.c, hasn't it?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de

[Kevin Bracey]

In message <cd**********@s unnews.cern.ch>
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

In <cd**********@n ews-reader1.wanadoo .fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

So what?

So this is what people writing C code care about. When the importance of
portable programming penetrates your thick skull, you'll understand why.

The current standard is C99. Period.

So what?!? You're not posting to comp.std.c, are you?

The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.

Sez who? The FAQ maintainer obviously thinks otherwise, as the [ISO]
tag means:

International Organization for Standardization , ISO 9899:1990
(see question 11.2). [ISO]

I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.

Who are you to decide what the FAQ *should* do? Start your own FAQ and
put whatever you want there. Then see if anyone else cares about it.
Your C tutorial has already been a tremendous success in c.l.c, hasn't it?

I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness; I
think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's trying
for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster? I personally find him far more
of an irritant than the mere incompetents and general trolls like ERT. At
least they're not vindictive, unpleasant sociopaths with far too much posting
time on their hands.

*PLONK*

--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: [phone]
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: [phone]
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/

[jacob navia]

"Kevin Bracey" <ke**********@t ematic.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:e6******** ********@temati c.com...

In message <cd**********@s unnews.cern.ch>
Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote: [snip]
I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness; I think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's trying for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster? I personally find him far more of an irritant than the mere incompetents and general trolls like ERT. At
least they're not vindictive, unpleasant sociopaths with far too much posting time on their hands.

*PLONK*

Well I surely agree with this description :-)

I can't understand that the same people that strictly say that only
STANDARD C is on topic in this list now say that the C99 standard is
irrelevant. I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard
boolean interface header <stdbool.h> !!!

References:

ANSI/ISO C Standard 7.15 Boolean type and values <stdbool.h>

[Ben Pfaff]

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard boolean
interface header <stdbool.h> !!!

There's nothing anybody but the FAQ maintainer can do about that.
Take it up with Steve Summit.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

jacob navia wrote:

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

The C FAQ is obsolete.
It needs to be brought up-to-date.

[Steve Summit]

jacob navia wrote:

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least.

Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.

E. Robert Tisdale wrote: The C FAQ is obsolete.
I'm biased, of course, but I think that's a *little* strong.
It needs to be brought up-to-date.

When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?

Steve Summit
sc*@eskimo.com

[Keith Thompson]

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.fr> writes:

The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)

I agree. The C FAQ was updated just recently; the latest text
version, at <ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/s/scs/C-faq/faq.gz>, is less than
two weeks old (the HTML version hasn't been updated yet). It does
include material about the C99 standard; I'm a little surprised it
doesn't mention C99's new support for boolean types.

(Anyone who thinks the C FAQ *shouldn't* discuss C99 should probably
take it up with Steve Summit.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.