By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
458,086 Members | 1,244 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 458,086 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The Annotated C++ Language Standard by Koenig & Stroustrup????

P: n/a
In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called _The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:09:53 -0400, Steven T. Hatton
<su******@setidava.kushan.aa> wrote:
In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called
_The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual
written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now. I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...28842?v=glance
[2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/
--
Mike Higginbottom
http://www.peak41.co.uk
Jul 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:09:53 -0400, Steven T. Hatton
<su******@setidava.kushan.aa> wrote:
In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called
_The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual
written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now. I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...28842?v=glance
[2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/
--
Mike Higginbottom
http://www.peak41.co.uk
Jul 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
Mike Higginbottom wrote:

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now.
Until I reread the chapter, I thought the same thing. But that is Ellis &
Stroustrup. The one I was talking about was Koenig & Stroustrup. I have
[1]. It is _way_ out of date. I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].
That does look work bookmarking. I have yet to find exactly what I want.
For example this: http://www.cppreference.com/index.html is pretty nice,
but it falls a bit short. If I try to find all the possible syntactic
variants of the use of /const/ by clicking the key word, all I get is a
general definition. I'll grant you, a new ARM would probably not present
information that way either.
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...28842?v=glance [2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/


I stumbled onto this. It may be a bit too pedestrian, but it may also be
complete enough for a core language reference:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jallert/cs1521...ew/ppframe.htm
I've been wanting an excuse to post this one. Now I have it:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mcdonald/cs108/
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
Mike Higginbottom wrote:

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now.
Until I reread the chapter, I thought the same thing. But that is Ellis &
Stroustrup. The one I was talking about was Koenig & Stroustrup. I have
[1]. It is _way_ out of date. I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].
That does look work bookmarking. I have yet to find exactly what I want.
For example this: http://www.cppreference.com/index.html is pretty nice,
but it falls a bit short. If I try to find all the possible syntactic
variants of the use of /const/ by clicking the key word, all I get is a
general definition. I'll grant you, a new ARM would probably not present
information that way either.
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...28842?v=glance [2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/


I stumbled onto this. It may be a bit too pedestrian, but it may also be
complete enough for a core language reference:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jallert/cs1521...ew/ppframe.htm
I've been wanting an excuse to post this one. Now I have it:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mcdonald/cs108/
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setidava.kushan.aa> wrote:
In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called _The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.


The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.

- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ
Jul 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Steven T. Hatton" <su******@setidava.kushan.aa> wrote:
In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called _The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.


The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.

- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ
Jul 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess this means I can stop grinding my axe
with ill intent toward ISO. ;-)
- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ


I certainly understood it as suggesting ISO was responsible for the ARM++
not being available.

BTW, on page 8 of TC++PL(SE) you wrote "Facilities such as dynamic loading,
incremental compilation, and a database of type definitions can be put to
good use without affecting the language." What were you suggesting by "a
database of type definitions"?

STH
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess this means I can stop grinding my axe
with ill intent toward ISO. ;-)
- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ


I certainly understood it as suggesting ISO was responsible for the ARM++
not being available.

BTW, on page 8 of TC++PL(SE) you wrote "Facilities such as dynamic loading,
incremental compilation, and a database of type definitions can be put to
good use without affecting the language." What were you suggesting by "a
database of type definitions"?

STH
--
p->m == (*p).m == p[0].m
http://www.kdevelop.org
http://www.suse.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #9

P: n/a
Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.
That explanation is far more gratifying that the misunderstanding I had.
PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ


Something else came to mind regarding this topic. Since TC++PL(SE) was
intended to have a companion book (according to the author, that is),
perhaps recommending an alternative would be a sufficient means of
addressing the same need.

For myself, what I have found lacking is a comprehensive and clear
exposition of the core language features in the form of a reference. For
example, I would like to be able to look up a keyword in an index, and be
directed to a section defining the keyword, and showing an example of all
forms of its usage. To have such a thing in electronic form would be even
more helpful.

As for an ARM++, that seems to be something more useful to the veteran C++
programmer. There are many design choices represented in ISO/IEC
14882:2003(E), but, due to the nature of the document, there is little
communication of the motivation for the decisions. Much of this may be
covered in D&E, which I haven't found time to read yet.

Then there seem to be a few things in the 14882:2003(E) which not everybody
should know. Not that they are bad. It's just that things like that are
potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
--
STH
Hatton's Law: "There is only One inviolable Law"
KDevelop: http://www.kdevelop.org SuSE: http://www.suse.com
Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.
That explanation is far more gratifying that the misunderstanding I had.
PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ


Something else came to mind regarding this topic. Since TC++PL(SE) was
intended to have a companion book (according to the author, that is),
perhaps recommending an alternative would be a sufficient means of
addressing the same need.

For myself, what I have found lacking is a comprehensive and clear
exposition of the core language features in the form of a reference. For
example, I would like to be able to look up a keyword in an index, and be
directed to a section defining the keyword, and showing an example of all
forms of its usage. To have such a thing in electronic form would be even
more helpful.

As for an ARM++, that seems to be something more useful to the veteran C++
programmer. There are many design choices represented in ISO/IEC
14882:2003(E), but, due to the nature of the document, there is little
communication of the motivation for the decisions. Much of this may be
covered in D&E, which I haven't found time to read yet.

Then there seem to be a few things in the 14882:2003(E) which not everybody
should know. Not that they are bad. It's just that things like that are
potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
--
STH
Hatton's Law: "There is only One inviolable Law"
KDevelop: http://www.kdevelop.org SuSE: http://www.suse.com
Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ


This appears to be an exceptionally good resource. It does describe C/C++
with AIX extensions, but from what I've been able to glean, the authors did
an honerable job of distinguishing between the extentions and the Standard.

C for AIX, Version 6.0, C/C++ Language Reference
http://ibmdocs.ncep.noaa.gov/c6/
--
STH
Hatton's Law: "There is only One inviolable Law"
KDevelop: http://www.kdevelop.org SuSE: http://www.suse.com
Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Jul 22 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.