A C tutorial

[jacob navia]

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

I have added quite a bit of material, and I would be
glad if people in this group give it a try and tell me if
I am saying nonsense somewhere.

Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)

And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.

jacob

[Sidney Cadot]

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

I have added quite a bit of material, and I would be
glad if people in this group give it a try and tell me if
I am saying nonsense somewhere.

Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)
This will attract some flak from this crowd. ANSI C and operator
overloading do not go together; this has little to do with zealotry or
heresy... It's more like saying: I'm writing something about soccer,
which includes a section on how to properly use a tennis racket.

If you're going to do a tutorial on C++, why not simply call it a C++
tutorial?
And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.

Unfortunately, the ftp server seems to be overloaded.

Best regards, Sidney

[jacob navia]

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote in message
news:bv**********@news.tudelft.nl...

jacob navia wrote:
This will attract some flak from this crowd. ANSI C and operator
overloading do not go together; this has little to do with zealotry or heresy... It's more like saying: I'm writing something about soccer,
which includes a section on how to properly use a tennis racket.

The implementation is 100% compatible with the standard. As
you may know, the standard doesn't forbid extensions.
If you're going to do a tutorial on C++, why not simply call it a C++ tutorial?
Because is C. No object oriented programming, no namespaces
no facets, no complexity. Just a few ideas from C++.

And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.
Unfortunately, the ftp server seems to be overloaded.

Yes, there are many people using it, I hope it is useful.
Just try again later.

Best regards, Sidney

Thanks
jacob

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Sidney Cadot wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL. <snip...> Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)

This will attract some flak from this crowd. ANSI C and operator
overloading do not go together; this has little to do with zealotry or
heresy... It's more like saying: I'm writing something about soccer,
which includes a section on how to properly use a tennis racket.

But as I understand it, Jacob *does* play soccer with a tennis
racket... :)

Re the actual content, I gave it a very cursory inspection. The
text still has a higher-than-average number of typos (capitalize
"Linux," for example, and the diagram on page 4, besides being
slightly mis-laid-out with respect to the surrounding text, has
a typo in the compiler message itself ("sucessfully"?)).
The technical content of the text is so lcc-win32 specific as to
make any review by comp.lang.c essentially pointless. From an ISO
Standard point of view, you've got errors up the wazoo -- but as
far as I can tell, at least the first few dozen pages are correct
from an lcc-win32 point of view.
I will also say that the typography needs some work. It's legible,
but you haven't paid much attention to the consistent use of Courier
for code snippets embedded in the text, the difference between ` and '
and whatever TeX does with ", `` and '', and lots of other little
typographical nits. Makes it somewhat more annoying to read than it
really has to be, IMHO.

my $.02,
-Arthur

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Bubba wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:51:18 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote...

If you're going to do a tutorial on C++, why not simply call it
a C++ tutorial?
Because is C. No object oriented programming, no namespaces
no facets, no complexity. Just a few ideas from C++.

Then it isn't C. The code may be C++, which happens to have a lot in
common with C (though it is not truly a superset)
Operator overloading is without a doubt NOT ISO/ANSI C.

So you're telling me that just because a program does not use class,
namespace, or templates means its not C++. I think you have flawed
reasoning.

<snip> Sorry, but your tutorial uses C++. It may use a restricted subset of C++,
but it is still C++, not C.

Got it?

You are mistaken. Jacob Navia's compiler is most definitely *NOT*
a C++ compiler, and doesn't try to be (AFAIK). It *is* a C compiler
with a whole bunch of non-standard extensions, including operator
overloading and suchlike. But it's *NOT* C++!

To use Sidney's analogy, just because Jacob likes to play soccer
using a tennis racket doesn't mean he's playing tennis. He may not
be playing tournament-rules soccer, but he's sure as heck not
playing tennis, if he's still kicking around that big black-and-white
ball!

[Jacob's an off-and-on regular in c.l.c, which is how I know what
his compiler is like, second-hand. I've never tried it myself: I
prefer to play soccer with my feet, and tennis with my tennis racket.
;-) ]

-Arthur

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:

Something that calls itself Bubba wrote:
[snip]
You are mistaken.

[snip]

Arthur,

Please don't feed the trolls.

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

--
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 Ambuhl]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview? Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?
--
Martin Ambuhl

[Richard Heathfield]

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in
a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat
Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader
or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to
read your tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview?

Nothing at all, of course, although I don't particularly enjoy using it. I
use it for reading the Standard, because it's in my direct interest to be
able to read the Standard as a PDF. But when I have no particular reason to
read a document other than to review it in case I can help its author to
improve it, well, call me Mr Silly but I don't think it's the author's
place to insist that I use the software /he/ chooses.

Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?

He says it does, and he should know, shouldn't he?
--
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

[Joona I Palaste]

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.
Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview? Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?

I wouldn't be surprised if some web site authors write documents that
really _do_ require a particular (usually commercial) product to read.
Even if they don't use any proprietary features of that particular
product.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"As a boy, I often dreamed of being a baseball, but now we must go forward, not
backward, upward, not forward, and always whirling, whirling towards freedom!"
- Kang

[jacob navia]

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pi***********************************@unix42. andrew.cmu.edu...

Re the actual content, I gave it a very cursory inspection. The
text still has a higher-than-average number of typos (capitalize
"Linux," for example, and the diagram on page 4, besides being
slightly mis-laid-out with respect to the surrounding text, has
a typo in the compiler message itself ("sucessfully"?)).
Oooops!
The typo is not in the tutorial but in the IDE. The tutorial just
contains a screen copy.

Thanks, I corrected that immediately.
The technical content of the text is so lcc-win32 specific as to
make any review by comp.lang.c essentially pointless. From an ISO
Standard point of view, you've got errors up the wazoo -- but as
far as I can tell, at least the first few dozen pages are correct
from an lcc-win32 point of view.
I will also say that the typography needs some work. It's legible, but you haven't paid much attention to the consistent use of Courier
for code snippets embedded in the text, the difference between ` and ' and whatever TeX does with ", `` and '', and lots of other little
typographical nits.
I didn't want to use Word, so I wrote it with Adobe Frame maker,
a very expensive and badly functioning software as I discovered
after buying it. The spell checker is inexistent almost. I will
spell check it with Word again.
Makes it somewhat more annoying to read than it
really has to be, IMHO.

my $.02,
-Arthur

Thank you for your comments

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version
available in a portable document format? The site says that "you
need the Acrobat Reader to view it". You see, given a choice
between using Acrobat Reader or not reading your tutorial, I will
cheerfully give up the chance to read your tutorial.

What we don't know is how highly his exposition depends on
graphics. Use of pdf is clearly more portable than (ugh) word
files. Text maximizes portability and minimizes graphics. I have
found that an amalgam of html and small graphics suffices quite
nicely to handle all of KandR2 and adapts quite nicely to most
page sizes.

Meanwhile let us give M. Navia proper credit for advancing from
word files. Unfortunately he is still delivering packages in .exe
files with all the attendant security risks, and he may repair
that also in the future.

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

[Darrell Grainger]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

I have added quite a bit of material, and I would be
glad if people in this group give it a try and tell me if
I am saying nonsense somewhere.

Beware that I am not very orthodox, hence my tutorial
(and the associated compiler) is not just a tutorial about
ANSI C, but covers things like operator overloading and
other heresies :-)

And since it is running in a specific OS, windows
programming makes for quite a lot of pages. If you
use another OS however, the first part is (almost)
straight C.

jacob

It is not bad. It is not great but it is no worse then my old lecture
notes. The title is appropriate. You call it "Programming with lcc-win32",
which I like. The main problem I have with it is the title and first
paragraph of chapter 1.

This is not an introduction to C. It is a tutorial for lcc-win32. I have
found a lot of new programmers make assumptions when things are not clear.
Could you make the first paragraph a little more clear? For example,

"This tutorial requires the lcc-win32 compiler. It uses many extensions to
the C programming language only available to the lcc-win32 compiler. This
compiler is available free for personal use. Please download and install
it before continuing."

I find it frustrating when students think they know C programming but the
reality is that they are lost if they are not using a specific compiler
with extensions. They often have more problems in our C programming course
then students with absolutely no programming experience.

Even as someone who has been programming for 20 years, there are questions
I know to ask but did not see the answer to. Is the lcc-win32 compiler C99
compliant? Is is C89 compliant with extensions? Are there things the
extensions have broken in regards to C89 compliance?

Finally, the second paragraph of chapter 1 has the sentence "There are
other, better books that do [full-fledged introduction to all of C] (see
the bibliography at the end of this book)." This bibliography appears to
be missing.

--
Send e-mail to: darrell at cs dot toronto dot edu
Don't send e-mail to vi************@whitehouse.gov

[jacob navia]

"Darrell Grainger" <da*****@NOMORESPAMcs.utoronto.ca.com> wrote in
message news:Pi*******************************@drj.pf...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, jacob navia wrote:
[snip] Even as someone who has been programming for 20 years, there are questions I know to ask but did not see the answer to. Is the lcc-win32 compiler C99 compliant?
Yes
Is is C89 compliant with extensions?
Yes.
Are there things the
extensions have broken in regards to C89 compliance?
No.

Note that you can avoid any extensions by invoking the compiler with
the -ansic flag. This can be selected in the IDE by checking the
ANSI C only button in the compiler configuration tab.

So all extensions "problems" disappear.

All extensions are properly labelled as such everywhere.
Finally, the second paragraph of chapter 1 has the sentence "There are other, better books that do [full-fledged introduction to all of C] (see the bibliography at the end of this book)." This bibliography appears to be missing.

Yes, Frame maker crashed and destroyed this part of the document.
I have to write it again.

jacob

[Sidney Cadot]

jacob navia wrote:

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote in message
news:bv**********@news.tudelft.nl...

jacob navia wrote:
This will attract some flak from this crowd. ANSI C and operator
overloading do not go together; this has little to do with zealotry or
heresy... It's more like saying: I'm writing something about soccer,
which includes a section on how to properly use a tennis racket.

The implementation is 100% compatible with the standard. As
you may know, the standard doesn't forbid extensions.

Ok. I assumed a couple of things from your post that were unwarranted;
it didn't help that I didn't have your document at the time.

Having extensions is of course ok, as long as you document them and they
can be disabled, which you do.

I have now downloaded your document, it looks like quite a nicely
crafted piece of work on first browsing. I agree with the other comment
that it's really a combination of a C introduction with a
compiler-specific tutorial. This is of course perfectly ok, but perhaps
you could make that a bit cleaner.

If I have some time to spare I will look into it a bit more.

Best regards, Sidney

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@titan.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

How do you read your copy of the C99 standard?

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@hercules.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:
There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.
Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in
a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat
Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader
or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to
read your tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview?

Nothing at all, of course, although I don't particularly enjoy using it. I
use it for reading the Standard, because it's in my direct interest to be
able to read the Standard as a PDF. But when I have no particular reason to
read a document other than to review it in case I can help its author to
improve it, well, call me Mr Silly but I don't think it's the author's
place to insist that I use the software /he/ chooses.

What is preventing you from using the PDF reader of your choice?

The author recommended one producing first class output, but if you
prefer ugly output instead, gv will do just fine.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview? Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?

I wouldn't be surprised if some web site authors write documents that
really _do_ require a particular (usually commercial) product to read.
Even if they don't use any proprietary features of that particular
product.

Why would Jacob Navia want to do such a foolish thing?

His document *can* be read with open source software.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote in message
news:bv**********@news.tudelft.nl...

jacob navia wrote:
This will attract some flak from this crowd. ANSI C and operator
overloading do not go together; this has little to do with zealotry

or

heresy... It's more like saying: I'm writing something about soccer,
which includes a section on how to properly use a tennis racket.

The implementation is 100% compatible with the standard. As
you may know, the standard doesn't forbid extensions.

ONLY if they are in the form of assigning a well defining meaning to
program constructs that otherwise invoke undefined behaviour.

For example, you're not allowed to invade the program name space with
identifiers like WINVER and WIN32 (but _WIN32 and _WIN32_IE are OK) and

int c = operator+(a,b);

*must* be parsed as

int c = operator + (a,b);

where operator is a program defined identifier (this is a perfectly
valid C expression, BTW).

Otherwise, your compiler is not a conforming C compiler.

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

[jacob navia]

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:bv**********@sunnews.cern.ch...

In <bv**********@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr> "jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: For example, you're not allowed to invade the program name space with identifiers like WINVER and WIN32 (but _WIN32 and _WIN32_IE are OK) and
int c = operator+(a,b);

*must* be parsed as

int c = operator + (a,b);

where operator is a program defined identifier (this is a perfectly
valid C expression, BTW).

Otherwise, your compiler is not a conforming C compiler.

Yes. Here is a session transcript
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int operator = 2;
int c = operator+(2,3);

printf("c is %d\n",c);
return 0;
}

D:\lcc\mc50\test>lc top.c

D:\lcc\mc50\test>top
c is 5

D:\lcc\mc50\test>

I have really worked on that...

Besides, I repeat ALL extensions will be disabled with the -ansic
flag.
In that case:
1) No operator overloading
2) No 350 bit precision floats (long double still works of course)
3) No generic functions
4) No default arguments.

It is possible that some problems could appear with complex numbers,
since
internally they use operator overloading. In that case please write a
bug report and I will fix it ASAP.

Thanks for your input Dan.

[Joona I Palaste]

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> scribbled the following:

In <bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>There is a C tutorial at
>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>It is written to go with the compiler, available
>at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview? Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?

I wouldn't be surprised if some web site authors write documents that
really _do_ require a particular (usually commercial) product to read.
Even if they don't use any proprietary features of that particular
product.

Why would Jacob Navia want to do such a foolish thing? His document *can* be read with open source software.

Where have I claimed *Jacob Navia* wrote documents that require a
particular product to read?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Normal is what everyone else is, and you're not."
- Dr. Tolian Soran

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, jacob navia wrote:

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote...

Re the actual content, I gave it a very cursory inspection. The
text still has a higher-than-average number of typos [snip] I will also say that the typography needs some work. It's

legible,

but you haven't paid much attention to the consistent use of Courier
for code snippets embedded in the text, the difference between ` and
' and whatever TeX does with ", `` and '', and lots of other little
typographical nits.

I didn't want to use Word, so I wrote it with Adobe Frame maker,
a very expensive and badly functioning software as I discovered
after buying it. The spell checker is inexistent almost. I will
spell check it with Word again.

I have recently become a LaTeX convert (lots of math homework and
Linux will do that to you). I strongly recommend you look at it,
and its companion 'pdflatex' (although writing a whole book-length
piece in LaTeX, with charts and pictures and an index, might be a
little tricky, I dunno). Plus, then you would be able to release
the text in a portable document format (namely, LaTeX), so that
Richard could read it. ;-)
Don't use Word's spell-checker. It will just make your text
word-wise correct, leaving in the character-wise (typographical)
and sentence-wise (grammatical) problems. If you can't stand to
read through your own text in order to find the bugs, what makes
you think anyone else will? :) [English as a non-native language,
I guess, would be a really good excuse. Hey, release the portable
source to the text, and let the Free Market (TM) fix your typos!]

-Arthur

[Richard Heathfield]

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@titan.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in
a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat
Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader
or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read
your tutorial.

How do you read your copy of the C99 standard?

I use ghostview (from which I cannot copy/paste, and which I find awkward
and clunky to use). I am not formatting a tool-generated text copy of the
Standard in my spare time, and it is not approximately 10% complete. When
it is not 100% complete, I will not no longer need ghostview.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Dan Pop wrote:

What is preventing you from using the PDF reader of your choice?

The PDF reader of my *choice* is vim.

--
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

[Jack Klein]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:39:52 -0500 (EST), "Arthur J. O'Dwyer"
<aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in comp.lang.c:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Bubba wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:51:18 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

"Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote...

> If you're going to do a tutorial on C++, why not simply call it
> a C++ tutorial?

Because is C. No object oriented programming, no namespaces
no facets, no complexity. Just a few ideas from C++.

Then it isn't C. The code may be C++, which happens to have a lot in
common with C (though it is not truly a superset)
Operator overloading is without a doubt NOT ISO/ANSI C.

So you're telling me that just because a program does not use class,
namespace, or templates means its not C++. I think you have flawed
reasoning.

<snip>

Sorry, but your tutorial uses C++. It may use a restricted subset of C++,
but it is still C++, not C.

Got it?

You are mistaken. Jacob Navia's compiler is most definitely *NOT*
a C++ compiler, and doesn't try to be (AFAIK). It *is* a C compiler
with a whole bunch of non-standard extensions, including operator
overloading and suchlike. But it's *NOT* C++!

To use Sidney's analogy, just because Jacob likes to play soccer
using a tennis racket doesn't mean he's playing tennis. He may not
be playing tournament-rules soccer, but he's sure as heck not
playing tennis, if he's still kicking around that big black-and-white
ball!

[Jacob's an off-and-on regular in c.l.c, which is how I know what
his compiler is like, second-hand. I've never tried it myself: I
prefer to play soccer with my feet, and tennis with my tennis racket.
;-) ]

-Arthur

The mistake you are making, Arthur, is assuming that lcc-win32's
extensions keep it from being a very good conforming C90 compiler with
a large subset of C99's features when desired.

That is most certainly not the case, and I have used various versions
of his compiler for years, with excellent results.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Jack Klein]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:39:59 +0100, "jacob navia"
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in comp.lang.c:

I didn't want to use Word, so I wrote it with Adobe Frame maker,
a very expensive and badly functioning software as I discovered
after buying it. The spell checker is inexistent almost. I will
spell check it with Word again.

Jacob, a suggestion from a happy lcc-win32 user. I have been using
Open Office lately (free download from http://www.openoffice.org). It
has very good Word comparability and also the ability to directly
generate PDF files for distribution, so people who download them only
need the free Acrobat reader and not any particular word processor.

If you give it a try, you might like it.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Jack Klein wrote:

<aj*@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in comp.lang.c:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Bubba wrote:

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:51:18 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
> "Sidney Cadot" <si****@jigsaw.nl> wrote...
>
>> If you're going to do a tutorial on C++, why not simply call it
>> a C++ tutorial?
>
> Because is C.

So you're telling me that just because a program does not use class,
namespace, or templates means its not C++. I think you have flawed
reasoning.
You are mistaken. Jacob Navia's compiler is most definitely *NOT*
a C++ compiler, and doesn't try to be (AFAIK). It *is* a C compiler
with a whole bunch of non-standard extensions, including operator
overloading and suchlike. But it's *NOT* C++!

To use Sidney's analogy, just because Jacob likes to play soccer
using a tennis racket doesn't mean he's playing tennis. He may not
be playing tournament-rules soccer, but he's sure as heck not
playing tennis, if he's still kicking around that big black-and-white
ball!

The mistake you are making, Arthur, is assuming that lcc-win32's
extensions keep it from being a very good conforming C90 compiler with
a large subset of C99's features when desired.
I make no such assumption. I only said Jacob seems to *prefer*
playing soccer with a tennis racket; I never said that he *always*
does so. :-) If his compiler weren't at least C90- or C99-conforming
in some mode, I wouldn't even have *called* it a "C compiler"!
So there!
That is most certainly not the case, and I have used various versions
of his compiler for years, with excellent results.

I don't doubt it.

-Arthur,
clarifying

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.ch> scribbled the following:

In <bv**********@oravannahka.helsinki.fi> Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> writes:

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
>>There is a C tutorial at
>>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>It is written to go with the compiler, available
>>at the same URL.
>
> Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in a
> portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader
> to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not
> reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
> tutorial.

What's wrong with Ghostview? Does his stuff _really_ need the Acrobat reader?

I wouldn't be surprised if some web site authors write documents that
really _do_ require a particular (usually commercial) product to read.
Even if they don't use any proprietary features of that particular
product.

Why would Jacob Navia want to do such a foolish thing?

His document *can* be read with open source software.

Where have I claimed *Jacob Navia* wrote documents that require a
particular product to read?

Then, what *exactly* was the point of your previous post, in the context
of this particular thread?

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@titan.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available in
a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat
Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader
or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read
your tutorial.
How do you read your copy of the C99 standard?

I use ghostview (from which I cannot copy/paste, and which I find awkward
and clunky to use).

OTOH, Acrobat Reader lets you copy/paste, generates excellent output
and is trivially easy to use. If your choice of tools is suboptimal,
there is little point in blaming others.
I am not formatting a tool-generated text copy of the
Standard in my spare time, and it is not approximately 10% complete. When
it is not 100% complete, I will not no longer need ghostview.

Been there, done that. You'll still need a PDF reader for the sections
involving math formulas (unless you translate them into TeX or some other
plain text representation that you can *easily* read). Admittedly, these
sections are seldom relevant to c.l.c discussions.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <bv**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

What is preventing you from using the PDF reader of your choice?

The PDF reader of my *choice* is vim.

Then, why are your complaining? ;-)

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

What is preventing you from using the PDF reader of your choice?

The PDF reader of my *choice* is vim.

Then, why are your complaining? ;-)

Who's complaining? :-)

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

In <bv**********@titan.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

jacob navia wrote:

> There is a C tutorial at
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
> It is written to go with the compiler, available
> at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version available
in a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat
Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader
or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to
read your tutorial.

How do you read your copy of the C99 standard?

I use ghostview (from which I cannot copy/paste, and which I find awkward
and clunky to use).

OTOH, Acrobat Reader lets you copy/paste, generates excellent output
and is trivially easy to use.

Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that the
program contains no malicious code?

<snip>

--
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

[August Derleth]

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:

Something that calls itself Bubba wrote:

[snip]

You are mistaken.

[snip]

Arthur,

Please don't feed the trolls.

Whadda ya want, for him to starve you?

--
My address is yvoregnevna gjragl-guerr gjb-gubhfnaq guerr ng lnubb qbg pbz
Note: Rot13 and convert spelled-out numbers to numerical equivalents.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:49:26 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that the
program contains no malicious code?

the license agreement avers that it doesn.t. . If acrobat eats your
machine, you can sue adobe.

BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
so your argument is spurious.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:49:26 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that the
program contains no malicious code?
the license agreement avers that it doesn.t.

Does it?
If acrobat eats your
machine, you can sue adobe.
Great! But anyone can sue anyone anytime. It doesn't guarantee I'll win.
BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
so your argument is spurious.

I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
programs for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
Source - lots of people have done this already, and word would soon get
around if there were any malware kicking around the open source scene.

Having said that, this isn't the place for an Open Source discussion. I'd
set followups if I could think of anywhere appropriate. I can't, so I'll
just shut up about it instead.

--
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

[Allin Cottrell]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

OTOH, Acrobat Reader lets you copy/paste, generates excellent output
and is trivially easy to use.

Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that the
program contains no malicious code?

If that's a concern, use xpdf instead. Last time I checked it did not
let you copy text, but it does let you search, which is probably more
significant in the orginal context (reading the C standard, I believe).

--
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC

[jacob navia]

"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bv**********@titan.btinternet.com...

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.
Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version

available in a portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your tutorial.

Look, I have taken the time to prepare:
ftp://ftp.cs.virginia.edu/pub/lcc-win32/tutorial.zip

It is in html format and only 600K. You can read it with your
browser. Many small things have disappeared, like the
indentation of program text, but it is still quite readable

I am in no way associated with Adobe corp. Neither do I want to do any
publicity for them.

But PDF is a widely used format, and there are many tools under linux
that
understand it perfectly. I could have put the post script file, but it
is 40MB,
zipping it reduces it to 12MB, quite considerable still. So I produced
zipped html.

jacob

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

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

.... snip ...
Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version
available in a portable document format? The site says that
"you need the Acrobat Reader to view it". You see, given a
choice between using Acrobat Reader or not reading your
tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read your
tutorial.

Look, I have taken the time to prepare:
ftp://ftp.cs.virginia.edu/pub/lcc-win32/tutorial.zip

It is in html format and only 600K. You can read it with your
browser. Many small things have disappeared, like the
indentation of program text, but it is still quite readable

Excellent. Program text indentation should be easily preserved
with <pre> </pre> enclosures. You might also look into the info
system, which can prepare html, pdf, info, text and ps output from
common source. All open source.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia wrote:

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a
version available in a portable document format? The
site says that "you need the Acrobat Reader to view
it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat
Reader or not reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully
give up the chance to read your tutorial.
Look, I have taken the time to prepare:
ftp://ftp.cs.virginia.edu/pub/lcc-win32/tutorial.zip

That is kind of you. Thank you. I will return the favour by reading the darn
thing and giving you some feedback. :-)

<snip>
But PDF is a widely used format,

Oh, I know, I know. That doesn't mean it necessarily /should/ be.

--
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

[Mike Wahler]

"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:40**************@jpl.nasa.gov...

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:

Something that calls itself Bubba wrote:

[snip]

You are mistaken.

[snip]

Arthur,

Please don't feed the trolls.

Eh, not hungry, Robert? :-)

-Mike

[Mike Wahler]

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:bv**********@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr...

The spell checker is inexistent almost.

That certainly appears to be the case.
:-)

-Mike

[Mike Wahler]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40***************@yahoo.com...

jacob navia wrote:

It is in html format and only 600K. You can read it with your
browser. Many small things have disappeared, like the
indentation of program text, but it is still quite readable

Excellent. Program text indentation should be easily preserved
with <pre> </pre> enclosures. You might also look into the info
system, which can prepare html, pdf, info, text and ps output from
common source. All open source.

"info system"? Does that have a more 'formal' name? Do you
have URL? Thanks.

-Mike

[Christian Bau]

In article <c0**********@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr>,
"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote:

"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bv**********@titan.btinternet.com...

jacob navia wrote:

There is a C tutorial at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is written to go with the compiler, available
at the same URL.

Thanks. I'd love to have a look at it. Do you have a version

available in a

portable document format? The site says that "you need the Acrobat

Reader

to view it". You see, given a choice between using Acrobat Reader or

not

reading your tutorial, I will cheerfully give up the chance to read

your

tutorial.

Look, I have taken the time to prepare:
ftp://ftp.cs.virginia.edu/pub/lcc-win32/tutorial.zip

It is in html format and only 600K. You can read it with your
browser. Many small things have disappeared, like the
indentation of program text, but it is still quite readable

I am in no way associated with Adobe corp. Neither do I want to do any
publicity for them.

But PDF is a widely used format, and there are many tools under linux
that
understand it perfectly. I could have put the post script file, but it
is 40MB,
zipping it reduces it to 12MB, quite considerable still. So I produced
zipped html.

To be honest, anyone using a Macintosh will be extremely keen on PDF
files, and they will _not_ use Acrobat Reader to view it. For example, I
can open the C Standard in PDF format, type any word in a search box,
and get a complete list of all occurences of that word, with context and
page number, about at the time that I finished typing. That is on a two
year old machine that wasn't too fast back then.

("Inadequate tools" springs to my mind).

[Christian Bau]

In article <cc*******************@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote:

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:bv**********@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr...

The spell checker is inexistent almost.

That certainly appears to be the case.

When writing tutorials, a spelling checker is usually much more useful
than a spell checker anyway. Harry Potter might need a spell checker, I
certainly don't.

[CBFalconer]

Mike Wahler wrote:

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote in message

jacob navia wrote:

It is in html format and only 600K. You can read it with your
browser. Many small things have disappeared, like the
indentation of program text, but it is still quite readable
Excellent. Program text indentation should be easily preserved
with <pre> </pre> enclosures. You might also look into the info
system, which can prepare html, pdf, info, text and ps output from
common source. All open source.

"info system"? Does that have a more 'formal' name? Do you
have URL? Thanks.

If you are using windoze any of DJGPP, MINGW, CYGWIN will provide
a suitable environment for the system. Once you get over a
learning curve (which I haven't) you can get on-line output for
the info viewer, man output, pdf, ps, html, xml, even tex.
However, it is not a wysiwyg system.

Some excerpts from documentation on my system:
Texinfo
*******

This manual is for GNU Texinfo (version 4.2, 28 March 2002), a
documentation system that can produce both online information and a
printed manual from a single source.

Copyright (C) 1988, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02
Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts
being "A GNU Manual," and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a)
below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
"GNU Free Documentation License."

(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have freedom to copy and
modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by
the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development."

The first part of this master menu lists the major nodes in this Info
document, including the @-command and concept indices. The rest of the
menu lists all the lower level nodes in the document.

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

[Dan Pop]

In <c0**********@sparta.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Dan Pop wrote:

OTOH, Acrobat Reader lets you copy/paste, generates excellent output
and is trivially easy to use.

Is the source code freely available, so that I can assure myself that the
program contains no malicious code?

On how much of the software you're currently using have you already
performed this check?

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

[Dan Pop]

In <c0*********@hercules.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
so your argument is spurious.

I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
programs for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
Source - lots of people have done this already,

How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
doing it :-)

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

[Dan Pop]

In <c0**********@titan.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

jacob navia wrote:

But PDF is a widely used format,

Oh, I know, I know. That doesn't mean it necessarily /should/ be.

Name one document format with a public specification that should be
used instead, allowing for comparable quality of the printed output.
And explain why that format should be used instead of PDF.

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

[Martin Dickopp]

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <c0*********@hercules.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

BTW I bet you a groat you don't scan most programs for malicious code,
so your argument is spurious.

I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
programs for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
Source - lots of people have done this already,

How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
doing it :-)

For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
disproves that /no one/ is doing it. :)

Martin

[Jarno A Wuolijoki]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Martin Dickopp wrote:

Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

In <c0*********@hercules.btinternet.com> Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

I disagree that the argument is spurious. It's true that I don't scan most
programs for malicious code; I don't have to, because - since they're Open
Source - lots of people have done this already,

How do you know it? If everyone reasons like you, no one is actually
doing it :-)

For the record, I often read the source code of Free Software, which
disproves that /no one/ is doing it. :)

Cool,

Now you only need to show that your reasoning is after all similar
to Heathfields and that merely reading software for other reasons than
scanning for malicious code constitutes as "it" and you'll have Dan
nailed for false statement ;)