Up-to-dateness of the c.l.c. FAQ

[Sidney Cadot]

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a bit
that has happened since then should probably be addressed (introduction
of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with the
freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and there's
a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing properly
belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

[Ben Pfaff]

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

[Sidney Cadot]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps hope
he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. For one reason or another, it doesn't seem to be very actively
maintained; for another thing, if something would happen to Steve that
would make it impossible for him to do maintenance, nobody could use his
work as an extensive basis for a version that would be maintained
because of the copyright (I think). That would surely be undesirable?

Best regards, Sidney

[Ben Pfaff]

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps
hope he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. [...]

Oh, definitely. But it's a little harsh on Steve to tell him
that his work "properly belong[s] in the public domain." Based
on my own efforts to write up just a few FAQ answers, I'm sure
he's put an enormous amount of time and effort into the C FAQ.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Sidney Cadot]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:
As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Hold your horses.... I never said he should, did I? I would perhaps
hope he would /consider/ it, with all pros and cons.

I do think it would be more convenient if the FAQ were in the public
domain. [...]

Oh, definitely. But it's a little harsh on Steve to tell him
that his work "properly belong[s] in the public domain." Based
on my own efforts to write up just a few FAQ answers, I'm sure
he's put an enormous amount of time and effort into the C FAQ.

Well, it wasn't intended as such (it was stated in quite general terms),
and I too appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into it.

However, all of this appreciation does not negate the two drawbacks
stated in my previous post. It /is/ a bit weird that AD 2004 the c.l.c.
FAQ consistently talks about the 'forthcoming C9X standard' in the
future tense, don't you think, and there is a real risk of Steve not
being available for maintenance indefinitely.

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle. In general, if one is to redirect
people to the FAQ in a harsh-but-just manner, the FAQ had better been
spot-on accurate, and in touch with current events. Just my five cents.

Best regards, Sidney

[Papadopoulos Giannis]

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a bit
that has happened since then should probably be addressed (introduction
of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with the
freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and there's
a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing properly
belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

--
#include <stdio.h>
#define p(s) printf(#s" endian")
int main(void){int v=1;*(char*)&v?p(Little):p(Big);return 0;}

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

[Richard Bos]

Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Why? He wrote it, why should he give up copyright on it?

Well, no... but I have wondered before whether it were not better named
"C language FAQ", and whether there should not be a c.l.c FAQ that
actually is about the newsgroup, not about the language. Then again, I'm
not about to write, let alone maintain, this newsgroup FAQ, so I
shouldn't talk, really.

Richard

[Dan Pop]

In <bv***********@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr> Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Go on.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@news.tudelft.nl> Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then discuss the issue with Steve, because he is the only one who can do
something about it.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <40****************@news.individual.net> rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:

Well, no... but I have wondered before whether it were not better named
"C language FAQ", and whether there should not be a c.l.c FAQ that
actually is about the newsgroup, not about the language.

That's the point: the FAQ is really dealing with questions that are (or
were) frequently asked in the newsgroup, whether they are about the
language or not. Sections 18 and 19 have precious little to do with
the language.

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

[Ben Pfaff]

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

[Richard Heathfield]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

Ah, disingenuity rules OK! :-)

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ under
the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without regard
to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make a copy of
the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could
take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of
void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their Web
site.

Is that what we want?
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Martin Dickopp]

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Martin

[Tak-Shing Chan]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

I think he means ``GPL'ed''.

Tak-Shing

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

Ah, disingenuity rules OK! :-)

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ under
the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without regard
to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make a copy of
the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could
take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of
void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their Web
site.

Is that what we want?

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

[Default User]

Dan Pop wrote:

That's the point: the FAQ is really dealing with questions that are (or
were) frequently asked in the newsgroup, whether they are about the
language or not. Sections 18 and 19 have precious little to do with
the language.

However, it does not address questions that are normally part of a
newsgroup FAQ, such as "what things are on-topic here?"

For instance, the comp.lang.c++ FAQ list doesn't get to language
questions until section 6.


Brian Rodenborn

[Richard Heathfield]

Martin Dickopp wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Fair comment. So - do people think this is a good idea, or not?

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Sidney Cadot]

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@news.tudelft.nl> Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then discuss the issue with Steve, because he is the only one who can do
something about it.

No. I'm sure that some dedicated work by, say, 10 people, could produce
a high-quality FAQ from scratch, if need be, within a couple of months,
unencumbered by a copyright binding it to one person.

Your reply seems to indicate that you are either uncomfortable with this
discussion, or that you do not see the purpose of it. Is that true? If
so, why is that?

Best regards,

Sidney

[Richard Heathfield]

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

Ah, disingenuity rules OK! :-)

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without
regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make
a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g.
they could take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a
bunch of void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on
their Web site.

Is that what we want?

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

Always? I don't recall either of them saying that. Please provide message
IDs to support this claim. Thank you.

/My/ understanding of Mr Plauger's claim is this: P J Plauger has a good
reason for wanting to have his source compile in C++ as well as C, and of
course the cast is necessary in C++. But the need to be able to compile one
set of sources in two very different languages is sufficiently esoteric
that it need not be of concern to everyday programmers.

As for Mr Stroustrup, well, frankly I think he'd rather everyone stopped
using C altogether; so, whether he said what you claim he said or whether
he didn't, I'm not overly inclined to lend a vast amount of weight to his
opinions on malloc-casting (despite the significant level of respect I have
for his contributions to C and C++).

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Sidney Cadot]

Papadopoulos Giannis wrote:

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a
bit that has happened since then should probably be addressed
(introduction of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with the
freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Much better to change things by evolution rather than by revolution, I'd
say. Even if this could be organised (I think it would be difficult), it
would be a terrible waste of effort, considering the amount of work that
has gone into the current FAQ already.

Best regards, Sidney

[Sidney Cadot]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Martin Dickopp wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Fair comment. So - do people think this is a good idea, or not?

It's a sound idea, IMHO. However, life would be ever so much easier if
the work wouldn't have to start from scratch.

In short, I wonder what the opinions of Mr. Summit are on this matter.
I sure hope he reads this and shares his view on the matter.

Best regards, Sidney

[Papadopoulos Giannis]

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

I think he means ``GPL'ed''.

Tak-Shing

yeap...

--
#include <stdio.h>
#define p(s) printf(#s" endian")
int main(void){int v=1;*(char*)&v?p(Little):p(Big);return 0;}

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

[Ben Pfaff]

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:
How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

I think he means ``GPL'ed''.

yeap...

In that case, I'd suggest that the GPL isn't really the right
license for a text document. I'd either go with something like
the GNU FDL or a simple license that says "distribute and modify
freely as long as the copyright and authorship information is
retained".

If anyone wants to start such a list, I'm willing to contribute
what I have at benpfaff.org/writings/clc to it, if there's any
interest in them.

Perhaps we could use a wiki or similar to build the FAQ, although
with ERT around I worry what he would do to it.
--
Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Martin Dickopp wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.

Fair comment. So - do people think this is a good idea, or not?

I don't recall any limitation on modification/republication in the
GPL license. All it says is that the source must be available.
For a FAQ there may be slight difficulties in telling the source
from the final product, but that is a technicality.

Incidentally, fear not. If Steve gets hit by a truck the FAQ
copyrights will expire in something like 80 more years, provided
his heirs exercise due diligence in protecting them.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ben Pfaff wrote:
Papadopoulos Giannis <ip******@inf.uth.gr> writes:

>How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

There is already one:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
I don't see what the GNU GPL has to do with C, though.

Ah, disingenuity rules OK! :-)

So let's spell it out.

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c
FAQ under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone
whatsoever, without regard to their knowledge of or understanding
of the C language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ,
edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could take out all
that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void
main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their
Web site.

Is that what we want?

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

Always? I don't recall either of them saying that. Please provide
message IDs to support this claim. Thank you.

Actually I think our Trollsdale has shown a fairly droll sense of
humor with this posting. I kid you not. (quoting the late Jack
Paar, for the non-US audience.)

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Martin Dickopp]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Martin Dickopp wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ
> under the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever,
> without regard to their knowledge of or understanding of the C
> language, to make a copy of the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their
> heart's content (e.g. they could take out all that rot about undefined
> behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of void main examples into the middle
> somewhere), and publish it on their Web site.

Actually, nobody would be allowed to do that, unless the modified
version carried "prominent notices" that (and when) it has been
modified.
Fair comment. So - do people think this is a good idea, or not?

I don't recall any limitation on modification/republication in the
GPL license. All it says is that the source must be available.

I was refering to section 2a):

| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
| it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
| such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
| provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
|
| a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
| stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
For a FAQ there may be slight difficulties in telling the source from
the final product, but that is a technicality.
What difficulties do you see? The GPL defines source code as "the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

For plain text documents (as well as for programs in script languages),
the "source code" might be identical to the final product, but I don't
see how this could pose any difficulties.
Incidentally, fear not. If Steve gets hit by a truck the FAQ
copyrights will expire in something like 80 more years, provided his
heirs exercise due diligence in protecting them.

<OT>
....unless major governments retroactively change copyrights to extend
"infinitely minus one day" after the author's death in the meantime,
which at least one U.S. Senator seems to think satisfies the
Constitution's requirement to grant exclusive rights for a /limited/
period of time... ;)

(Actually, extrapolating the current trend, there is reason to believe
that governments will continue to extend the protection period by
N years every N years, so that no work created after the 1920s will
ever enter the public domain due to expiring copyrights.)
</OT>

Martin

[Robert Bachmann]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

In that case, I'd suggest that the GPL isn't really the right
license for a text document. I'd either go with something like
the GNU FDL or a simple license that says "distribute and modify
freely as long as the copyright and authorship information is
retained". I agree.
If anyone wants to start such a list, I'm willing to contribute
what I have at benpfaff.org/writings/clc to it, if there's any
interest in them. I think this is a good idea.
Perhaps we could use a wiki or similar to build the FAQ, although
with ERT around I worry what he would do to it.

I don't like the idea of using a wiki for this purpose,
because it would be easier to use this newsgroup for discussion and
building of the FAQ.

Perhaps there should be some label like "[FAQ building]" or something
in the subject lines of these threads.

Just my 2 cents.

-rb
--
Ro*************@rbdev.net

[Randy Howard]

In article <bv**********@news.tudelft.nl>, si****@jigsaw.nl says...

No. I'm sure that some dedicated work by, say, 10 people, could produce
a high-quality FAQ from scratch, if need be, within a couple of months,
unencumbered by a copyright binding it to one person.

Why not just start the development on your own (or with assistance) of
an "addendum" to his document which covers new FAQ's that you feel
need to be addressed, C99 features, ANSI vs. ISO differences, etc.?

No need to have Steve do anything if your intent is an open development
of new information. You could gradually add in content until it
becomes as complete long term, although I think you may be underestimating
the amount of effort required to get it all done with a high degree of
accuracy.

--
Randy Howard
2reply remove FOOBAR

[Randy Howard]

In article <40***************@boeing.com.invalid>,
fi********@boeing.com.invalid says...

For instance, the comp.lang.c++ FAQ list doesn't get to language
questions until section 6.

Which is typical of C++ bloatware... :-)

--
Randy Howard
2reply remove FOOBAR

[Richard Bos]

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

The proposal appears to be that we could start a new comp.lang.c FAQ under
the terms of the GPL. This would enable anyone whatsoever, without regard
to their knowledge of or understanding of the C language, to make a copy of
the newly-developed FAQ, edit it to their heart's content (e.g. they could
take out all that rot about undefined behaviour, or shoehorn a bunch of
void main examples into the middle somewhere), and publish it on their Web
site.

Is that what we want?

Jeez, no. Imagine you-know-who getting his silicate paws on it.

Richard

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@news.tudelft.nl> Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@news.tudelft.nl> Sidney Cadot <si****@jigsaw.nl> writes:

I hope I'm not tredding on a sensitive area here, I'm just trying to
approach this from a practical angle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then discuss the issue with Steve, because he is the only one who can do
something about it.

No. I'm sure that some dedicated work by, say, 10 people, could produce
a high-quality FAQ from scratch, if need be, within a couple of months,
unencumbered by a copyright binding it to one person.

Given the quality level of the current FAQ, motivating those 10 people
to reinvent the wheel is not going to be a trivial task. Good luck.
Your reply seems to indicate that you are either uncomfortable with this
discussion, or that you do not see the purpose of it. Is that true? If
so, why is that?

I thought that your *actual* intention was to have the copyright
removed from the current FAQ, rather than advocating the creation of
a new FAQ from scratch. Hence my previous reply.

If you want a new FAQ, I'm afraid that it will happen when you'll write
it yourself and no sooner than that. Most other people seem to be happy
enough with Steve's work and he seems to be still alive and kicking.
He even mentioned that he's working on an updated version, but that
this is rather low priority for him.

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

[Papadopoulos Giannis]

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis wrote:

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a
bit that has happened since then should probably be addressed
(introduction of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with
the freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Much better to change things by evolution rather than by revolution, I'd
say. Even if this could be organised (I think it would be difficult), it
would be a terrible waste of effort, considering the amount of work that
has gone into the current FAQ already.

Best regards, Sidney

From my point of view, since we do not have any rights on the original
FAQ, the only solution is to start a new FAQ... It does not need to
finish within a week or a month. It may seem as a waste of time, but
after some time it will surely surpass mr. Summit's work, as it will be
enriched with the experience of many C developers.

I like the idea of a wiki, but can it be moderated???

--
#include <stdio.h>
#define p(s) printf(#s" endian")
int main(void){int v=1;*(char*)&v?p(Little):p(Big);return 0;}

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

[Richard Heathfield]

Papadopoulos Giannis wrote:

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Papadopoulos Giannis wrote:

Sidney Cadot wrote:
Hi all,

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a
bit that has happened since then should probably be addressed
(introduction of C99 final, for one thing).

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with
the freely available HTML and printable versions.

As to the FAQ text, I see it is copyrighted by Steve Summit, and
there's a book version available as well. I appreciate the efforts he
undoubtedly has put into this, but shouldn't this kind of thing
properly belong in the public domain?

Best regards,

Sidney

How about starting a new GNU/GPL FAQ list??

Much better to change things by evolution rather than by revolution, I'd
say. Even if this could be organised (I think it would be difficult), it
would be a terrible waste of effort, considering the amount of work that
has gone into the current FAQ already.

Best regards, Sidney

From my point of view, since we do not have any rights on the original
FAQ, the only solution is to start a new FAQ... It does not need to
finish within a week or a month. It may seem as a waste of time, but
after some time it will surely surpass mr. Summit's work, as it will be
enriched with the experience of many C developers.

Mr Summit's work is already enriched with the experience of many C
developers, including Dennis Ritchie, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Clive Feather,
Mark Brader, Lawrence Kirby, Andrew Koenig, Eric Raymond, Mike Lee, Dan
Pop, Barry Margolin, Bob Stout... and well over a pageful of less-known
people, many of whom still read this newsgroup. What do you think your
chances are of getting the same quality input?
I like the idea of a wiki, but can it be moderated???

If you moderate it, you end up with the same problem - one person has
control, and then the process freezes if that person drops out of touch.
And if you don't, it'll almost certainly be a mess.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[CBFalconer]

Papadopoulos Giannis wrote:

.... snip ...

From my point of view, since we do not have any rights on the original
FAQ, the only solution is to start a new FAQ... It does not need to
finish within a week or a month. It may seem as a waste of time, but
after some time it will surely surpass mr. Summit's work, as it will
be enriched with the experience of many C developers.

So what? Nothing stops you from editing the FAQ on your own, for
your own use, and then sending a diff file to Steve Summit. If
you do the work, I suspect he will be very amenable to
incorporating it. Or are you worried about the <sarcasm> major
fortune he has made from the published version> </sarcasm>

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:57:10 -0800, E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Heavens no!

Imagine someone troll recommending using malloc without a cast
even though experts such as P. J. Plauger and Bjarne Stroustrup
have recommending that it should always be cast.

If Plaugher or Stroustrop have actual reasons for this position, by all
means, invite 'em in so we can discuss it.

However, there's a proviso. This is comp.lang.c, where we discuss _C_.
Not C++. Not code that compiles in both C and C++. Not Pascal, not Ada,
not GNU-specific extensions or Visual C++ warnings. Just C, nothing but C.

As a result, their arguments, to be relevant and/or topical, must deal
with the question of the utility and/or validity of the cast as relates to
C and _only_ to C; not to C++ or "code that compiles in both C and C++",
for example.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

However, there's a proviso. This is comp.lang.c, where we discuss _C_.
Not C++. Not code that compiles in both C and C++. Not Pascal, not Ada,
not GNU-specific extensions or Visual C++ warnings. Just C, nothing but C.

As a result, their arguments, to be relevant and/or topical, must deal
with the question of the utility and/or validity of the cast as relates to
C and _only_ to C; not to C++ or "code that compiles in both C and C++",
for example.

You seem to be confused.
The comp.lang.c newsgroup doesn't have or need a moderator.
Please submit your application to the comp.lang.c.moderated newsgroup.

[Richard Bos]

"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

However, there's a proviso. This is comp.lang.c, where we discuss _C_.
Not C++. Not code that compiles in both C and C++. Not Pascal, not Ada,
not GNU-specific extensions or Visual C++ warnings. Just C, nothing but C.

As a result, their arguments, to be relevant and/or topical, must deal
with the question of the utility and/or validity of the cast as relates to
C and _only_ to C; not to C++ or "code that compiles in both C and C++",
for example.

You seem to be confused.
The comp.lang.c newsgroup doesn't have or need a moderator.

Good.

I have this problem, and I expect you, yes, you, Tisdale, to deal with
it. My problem is with C, so it should be topical, right?

Ok. The problem is with the C in the Capitalis Rustica. I have this
awkward tendency to write the lower half of the bowl too long. I don't
have a problem with the C in, say, cancellaresca or uncial, probably
because those are more fully round. Neither do I have this problem with
the O in the rustica; I could understand it if I tended to write the
entire O slanted leftwards, but I don't. It's just the lower half of the
C that I have this problem with. It comes out too long, and the letter
tends to look like a G.
Of course, this is immensely irritating, not to mention confusing to the
reader. What trick should I use to keep my Cs well-balanced? I'm using
steel pens, if that helps, not feathers or reed.

Richard

[Dan Pop]

In <40**************@jpl.nasa.gov> "E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

The comp.lang.c newsgroup doesn't have or need a moderator.

That's because most regulars do their share of moderating work, pointing
the people with off-topic questions to the places they actually belong.

Without that, this newsgroup would soon become a sea of noise and stop
being of any service to anyone. You included, because there would be
no one left to pay any attention to your trolls ;-)

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

[Randy Howard]

In article <40****************@news.individual.net>, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl
says...

The problem is with the C in the Capitalis Rustica.

:-)

This is without question the most educational newsgroup in the entire
Usenet hierarchy. Thank you.

--
Randy Howard
2reply remove FOOBAR

[Steve Summit]

[Sorry for delay in this reposting of an article I first tried
to post last week; I've been having newsserver troubles.]

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Isn't it time for an update of the wording in some sections of the
c.l.c. FAQ ? The last update has been in 1999, I think, and quite a bit
that has happened since then should probably be addressed (introduction
of C99 final, for one thing).
It's well past time for an update, no question.

The good news is that I've put quite a bit of work into the list
over the past couple of years. (I've even been paying for a
domain name to host the new version under.) The bad news is that
it's still Not Quite Ready. It kills me to have done all this
recent work on it that neither I nor anyone else can get anything
useful out of yet, but at the same time, the last few "finishing
touches" (without which it really can't be posted) seem to
require some substantial chunks of the kind of quality time
that I just never manage to find.

There Will Be An Update, I promise you that. I just can't say
whether it'll be next month or the month after...
Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version with
the freely available HTML and printable versions.

Oh, they're synchronized, all right! They're so inextricably
synchronized that it's nearly impossible to actually generate
the actual text-only or HTML-only versions, which is one reason
their public release has been so grossly delayed...

Steve Summit
sc*@eskimo.com

[Richard Bos]

Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <40****************@news.individual.net>, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl
says...

The problem is with the C in the Capitalis Rustica.

:-)

This is without question the most educational newsgroup in the entire
Usenet hierarchy. Thank you.

You may be even more surprised to know, or maybe not, that I actually do
have that problem in my calligraphy.

Damn, it's too long since I've done some of that. Time to get out the
pens.

Richard

[CBFalconer]

Steve Summit wrote:

Sidney Cadot wrote:
.... snip ...

Also, it would be a good idea to synchronise the text version
with the freely available HTML and printable versions.

Oh, they're synchronized, all right! They're so inextricably
synchronized that it's nearly impossible to actually generate
the actual text-only or HTML-only versions, which is one reason
their public release has been so grossly delayed...

Have you looked into using texinfo?

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!