Are there books about C data structures?

[Mik0b0]

Hallo to everyone.
This fall I am going to start data structures as a part of C language
course. The problem is I could not find any satisfying tutorial about
structures in C. There are plenty of books about data structures in C+
+ etc., could anyone please recommend me such a C -specific book ? And
another question: are data structures (like stack, structure etc.)
used in C++ identical to those in C and is it possible to use C++
books to learn about the structures in C?

[user923005]

On Aug 23, 6:12 pm, Eric Sosman <[e-mail] e:

Keith Thompson wrote:

user923005 <dcor...@connx. comwrites:
[...]

Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures is the
CLR book.

I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?

[...]

Every programmer on earth should own his own set of TAOCP.

That's The Art of Computer Programming, by Knuth (some people here
might not recognize the abbreviation).

Those who don't can always ggl it.

if u cn rd ths msg u cn bcm a sec & gt a gd jb.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

[comp.lang.c] Eric Sosman <es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

Those who don't can always ggl it.

Is that "giggle"? (That wouldn't be a bad name for a search engine
either, but alas, the domain has been appropriated by a purveyor of
infant paraphernalia.)

--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gma il.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.or g | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.

[Malcolm McLean]

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwro te in message
news:6s******** ****@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:

>>
"osmium" <r1********@com cast.netwrote in message
news:5j******* ******@mid.indi vidual.net...

>> But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books
anyway, they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent,
languages are transient.

If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes
break perfectly good constructs.

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.

But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already deprecates
the string library.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Flash Gordon]

Malcolm McLean wrote, On 24/08/07 22:15:

>
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwro te in message
news:6s******** ****@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...

>Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:

>>>
"osmium" <r1********@com cast.netwrote in message
news:5j****** *******@mid.ind ividual.net...
But I am opposed to the general notion of language oriented books
anyway, they use the language du jour. Algorithms are permanent,
languages are transient.
If you use a very conservative subset of C then you solve most of the
problems, but not all of them, because standards committees sometimes
break perfectly good constructs.

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most
people would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of
new keywords being added.

But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead
to the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already
deprecates the string library.

Make up your mind whether you are arguing that the standards committee
will break the code or whether implementations will break it.

The current version of MSVC still compiles C programs conforming to C90,
and if prodded appropriately will not generate those warnings. I think
that MS would find themselves forced to back off if they ever actually
removed the standard functions they generate those warnings for, just as
a few years back they were forced to add in proper backwards
compatibility for a version of Word that lacked it.
--
Flash Gordon

[Eric Sosman]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

[comp.lang.c] Eric Sosman <es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

> Those who don't can always ggl it.

Is that "giggle"? (That wouldn't be a bad name for a search engine
either, but alas, the domain has been appropriated by a purveyor of
infant paraphernalia.)

<off-topic>

When Google first appeared on the scene, I supposed that
the founders were aficionados of 1920's popular entertainment:
"Barney Google and Snuffy Smith," "Barney Google with the goo-
goo- googly eyes," and so on.

It came as a disappointment when I read somewhere that the
name originated as a misspelling of "googol."

But maybe that's just a cover story to prevent us from
realizing we're being taken over by Cossacks. Isn't one of
the founders named Sergei? Maybe his family hails from
Sorochyntsi.

</off-topic>

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

<snip>

But [ISO] can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can
only lead to the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft
compiler already deprecates the string library.

Then ditch your Microsoft compiler. There are plenty of other high
quality compilers available for your platform, some of them free. For
parochialism to triumph, it is necessary only for cross-platform
developers to do nothing.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

user923005 <dc*****@connx. comwrites:
[...]

>Probably, the best book to learn algorithms and data structures
is the CLR book.

I don't know what "CLR" means, though a Google search leads me to
guess that you mean "common language runtime". Can you be more
specific?

Well, barring other evidence, I would assume it refers to a
pushbutton or routine that initializes something to an 'empty'
condition, such as blanking a screen. :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Malcolm McLean]

"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb .me.ukwrote in message
news:87******** ****@bsb.me.uk. ..

I probably have little credit in your bank, but if there is any left,
draw on it now and consider this question: does the world need yet
another X toolkit? I think not.

That's a good question. The idea of Baby X is that it is simple to use, at
the cost of not having much flexibility, and is also simple in code.
Initially it seemed to go very well, you can have scrollbars, buttons, edit
fields etc, all perfectly serviceable, in a few lines. Unfortunately adding
containers broke the premise that "each object is a window" of its own type,
whilst fonts and colours make things more complicated, and introduce
dependencies of the objects on each other. As I add functionality, it
becomes progressively more and more difficult to descibe how to write your
own BabyX component. Eventually it might end up as just another toolkit, so
the question becomes why not just use GTX?

>
What would be hugely useful is a simple C API to a common abstraction
(a simple subset, presumably) of the basic GUI functionality with
small back ends that implement this natively in Gtk, Qt, Win32 and
anything else anyone fancies. I don't know if this is really
possible, but if it is it would benefit everyone doing cross-platform
development of GUI C programs.

It is easy to define an interface. All you need is openwindow(widt h,
height), closewindow(), setpixel(x, y, colour), arguably getpixel(x, y),
querymouse(win, &x, &y), and squeaksqueak( void (*fptr)(int buttons, void
*ptr)), defiining a callback for mouse input, and kbhit() / getch() for the
keyboard.

In practise it is difficult to get this to work on all systems, because they
evilly take control of the main loop. That was another motive for writing
Baby X. Then you've got the problem of colour depth, not so severe now but a
real nuisance in the past. Finally you really need some hook into the
systems fonts. You can get output without it, but non-game users like to see
Ariel and Times New Roman.

Another problem again no longer as severe as it was, is that on some systems
there isn't enough memory to hold backing store for every window. So windows
need to be regenrated on demand.

The of course you can't write a non-trival GUI with just those functions,
you need sub-windows and other facilities on top. However you can implement
everythign in terms of simple pixel operations. Java's Swing does just
that - the previous approach, providing interfaces to native graphics calls,
failed.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Richard Bos]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrote :

"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwro te in message

Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:

>

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.

But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already deprecates
the string library.

Yes, but that's a politico-economical weapon, intended to lock you
deeper and deeper into M$'s broken "safe" extensions, not a rational
decision. It really has nothing to do with what the committee should and
should not do, except perhaps as an argument that the committee should
not give in to those bullies and should have nothing more to do with
that extension.

Richard

[Malcolm McLean]

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwr ote in message
news:46******** ********@news.x s4all.nl...

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btin ternet.comwrote :

>"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwro te in message

Malcolm McLean wrote, On 23/08/07 20:29:

It does not have to be very conservative since the committee generally
tries to avoid breaking too much existing code. Avoid things most
people
would consider bad practice, and the mostly leaves the risk of new
keywords being added.

But they can't make their decrees stick. In the end this can only lead to
the abandonment of the standard. My Microsoft compiler already
deprecates the string library.

Yes, but that's a politico-economical weapon, intended to lock you
deeper and deeper into M$'s broken "safe" extensions, not a rational
decision. It really has nothing to do with what the committee should and
should not do, except perhaps as an argument that the committee should
not give in to those bullies and should have nothing more to do with
that extension.

Or rather it is a rational decision, if you happen to have Microsoft shares,
but not from a software engineering perspective.
You are right, we need to fight back, to protect our language.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm