473,324 Members | 2,313 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,324 software developers and data experts.

How valid is a "draft"?

Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.

WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869

Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98 and C99
:)

Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard? If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?

And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?

Regards

--
Luis Alberto Giménez
JabberID: Si*******@amessage.de
GnuPG ID: 0x3BAABDE1
Nov 14 '05 #1
12 1585

"Alberto Giménez" <al****@teleline.es> wrote in message
news:mr***********@127.0.0.1...
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.

WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869

Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98 and C99
:)

Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard?
They're fairly close, but they're not the official specifications,
as are the actual standards. They're typically sufficient for
most cases.
If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
They're not as valid as the standards.

And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?


It costs money to develop and publish the standard (in addition
to the time the committee members donate). Who pays for the costs?

Anyway, is it really an issue to pay about $20 (the price for
the .PDF version) for something of this much value?

-Mike
Nov 14 '05 #2
Alberto Giménez wrote:
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.

WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869

Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98 and C99
:)
The top-of-page for the real standard (C99, there is not C98) is

ISO/IEC ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E)
Reference number
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)
ISO/IEC 1999
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
ISO/IEC
9899
Second edition
1999-12-01
Programming languages --- C
Langages de programmation --- C
Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard?
They are not.
If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
They're not, so the second part of the question is ignorable.
And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be free?


Who is it you think _should_ be paying for not just the effort but the
physical process of producing the standard? If you think it should be
free for the rest of us, I hope you are volunteering to bear the costs.
If you only want to not pay for it, why should others bear your part
of the costs?
Nov 14 '05 #3
Alberto Giménez wrote:
Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard? If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
No, they have no authority or force. On the other hand, they're pretty
similar to the real standard, so if you have no money, you can get a
good idea of the style and much of the content reading it, but don't
take anything in it for granted. If you're a real language buff, you own
the standard and read drafts to observe how they change over time.

If all you want is a cheap standard, you can get an electronic copy of
the C99 standard for about $20, and a copy of the C90 standard in the
book The Annotated ANSI C Standard (ISBN 0078819520, just don't read the
terrible annotations.) See also the FAQ, question 11.2:

http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q11.2.html
And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?


Generally speaking, people don't need the standard unless they're
writing a compiler for a language. Practitioners only need to know good
practice to write code successfully, and usually steer far clear of any
subtle language points. However, you could successfully argue that a
free standard contributes to compiler compliance, since people writing
free compilers often aren't willing to fork out the money for a complete
standard.
--
Derrick Coetzee
I grant this newsgroup posting into the public domain. I disclaim all
express or implied warranty and all liability. I am not a professional.
Nov 14 '05 #4
Alberto Giménez wrote:
.... snip ...
WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869

Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98
and C99 :)

Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard? If they are,
why must we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?

And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be
free? I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible
follow it, right?


N869 is the last draft before actual publishing. It is very close
to the final result, but has differences. For your purposes it
should do.

Unfortunately it takes time, money, and effort to produce and
promulgate the standard. The USD 18 it costs (for a download of a
..pdf file) is not excessive. Unfortunately the final is not
available as a pure text file, and thus I prefer to use N869 in
the text form. You can get the text version at:
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/>

C90 became available as 'The Annotated C Standard' as a book at a
fairly reasonable price. Unfortunately every second page (the
annotations) were worthless, as they were written by Schildt, and
couldn't be torn out because the other side held the actual
standard.

--
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush.
"If I knew then what I know today, I would still have invaded
Iraq. It was the right decision" - G.W. Bush, 2004-08-02
Nov 14 '05 #5
El Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:43:52 -0400, Martin Ambuhl escribió:
Alberto Giménez wrote:
Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98 and C99
:)


The top-of-page for the real standard (C99, there is not C98) is


Sorry, i meant C89, but having a look at the file, I've noticed that is
like another version of C99 draft.

Well, thanks for your gentle responses, and since I'm still a student, I
think I definitively will look for the draft (but I've heard that at the
university you can get a copy for free, will confirm).

--
Luis Alberto Giménez
JabberID: Si*******@amessage.de
GnuPG ID: 0x3BAABDE1
Nov 14 '05 #6
El Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:53:50 GMT, CBFalconer escribió:
C90 became available as 'The Annotated C Standard' as a book at a
fairly reasonable price. Unfortunately every second page (the
annotations) were worthless, as they were written by Schildt, and
couldn't be torn out because the other side held the actual
standard.


And there is something like a C89 'draft' similar to the standard? I've
been googling but the least thing I've found is the "rationale", that I
don't think is very 'descriptive', it has very sections missing.

I'm interested in C89 because I think that I don't need (by now)
most of the C99 updates ('//' comments?, bool type? WTF!), and most of
the usual posters of clc like and use C89 (apart from compiler
compliance, discussed in another thread).

--
Luis Alberto Giménez
JabberID: Si*******@amessage.de
GnuPG ID: 0x3BAABDE1
Nov 14 '05 #7
Alberto Giménez wrote:

And there is something like a C89 'draft' similar to the standard? I've
been googling but the least thing I've found is the "rationale", that I
don't think is very 'descriptive', it has very sections missing.
Dan Pop posted to comp.lang.c in <b8**********@sunnews.cern.ch>
If an *imperfect* copy of the last public draft of C89 is good enough for
your purposes, you can find it on the web at http://cern.ch/dan.pop/ansi.c


Nov 14 '05 #8

In article <41***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:

C90 became available as 'The Annotated C Standard' as a book at a
fairly reasonable price. Unfortunately every second page (the
annotations) were worthless, as they were written by Schildt, and
couldn't be torn out because the other side held the actual
standard.


More unfortunate (since the solution is less convenient) is that
_The Annotated C Standard_ is missing a page of the standard, and
it's one that's frequently useful - the description of field widths
and flags for fprintf. (TACS duplicated the text from page 131 of
the standard as page 132.)

Still, TACS has almost the entire C90 standard, and since that
document is difficult to get these days, I think it's worth grabbing
TACS if you find a cheap copy somewhere and you don't already have a
copy of 9899:1990.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

I do not care to listen; obloquy injures my self-esteem and I am
skeptical of praise. -- Jack Vance
Nov 14 '05 #9
In <mr***********@127.0.0.1> Alberto =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gim=E9nez?= <al****@teleline.es> writes:
Hello! I found on the web (www.open-std.org) what I think are C standard
drafts for C99 and C89. I suppose it is legal to download since tere
is no message forbiding (sorry for my terrible english :) to download
or requesting payment.

WG14/N843 Committee Draft -- August 3, 1998
Committee Draft -- January 18, 1999 WG14/N869

Those are the file's headers, so I deduced they're drafts of C98 and C99
:)

Are those 'drafts' as valid as the real standard? If they are, why must
we pay for a standard as valid as a "free" draft?
Why do you think they're called "drafts" in the first place?

If you pick a draft that's reasonably late, preferably the last public
draft (N869 in the case of the C99 standard), you can use it instead of
the real thing if you want a more precise description of the language
than usually available in tutorial books. However, anyone implementing
the language, should use the actual standard and accept no substitute.
And the last question (more philosophic) ¿Shouldn't a standard be free?
I think a standard mission is that as much people as possible follow it,
right?


This issue has been discussed at great length in comp.std.c. Check the
archives.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union
Nov 14 '05 #10
mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) writes:
In article <41***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes:
C90 became available as 'The Annotated C Standard' as a book at a
fairly reasonable price. Unfortunately every second page (the
annotations) were worthless, as they were written by Schildt, and
couldn't be torn out because the other side held the actual
standard.
More unfortunate (since the solution is less convenient) is that
_The Annotated C Standard_ is missing a page of the standard, and
it's one that's frequently useful - the description of field widths
and flags for fprintf. (TACS duplicated the text from page 131 of
the standard as page 132.)


The missing page is printed in P.J. Plauger's book _The Standard C
Library_ (which is worth owning anyway). If you own both books, I
presume that photocopying the page in question and inserting it into
your copy of TACS is fair use, but IANAL.
Still, TACS has almost the entire C90 standard, and since that
document is difficult to get these days, I think it's worth grabbing
TACS if you find a cheap copy somewhere and you don't already have a
copy of 9899:1990.


TACS may be difficult to find as well; it's out of print (and you
can't have my copy).

And just because it can't be said too often, *ignore the annotations*.
See Clive Feather's excellent review at
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html>.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Nov 14 '05 #11
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[On Schildt's _The Annotated C Standard_]
And just because it can't be said too often, *ignore the annotations*.


I seem to recall hearing, though I can't dig up a reference, that the
difference in price between the book and the standard itself reflected
the value of the annotations.

(For if it's not obvious, the book was priced rather lower than the
standard.)
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Practical Solution #1: Kill the programmer in question. This is
also the most satisfying solution, because it ensures that the
problem will not recur. --Ben Pfaff in comp.lang.c
Nov 14 '05 #12
In <ch**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca> dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) writes:
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[On Schildt's _The Annotated C Standard_]
And just because it can't be said too often, *ignore the annotations*.


I seem to recall hearing, though I can't dig up a reference, that the
difference in price between the book and the standard itself reflected
the value of the annotations.


Q11.2 of the c.l.c FAQ:

....
The mistitled _Annotated ANSI C Standard_, with annotations by
Herbert Schildt, contains most of the text of ISO 9899; it is
published by Osborne/McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-881952-0, and sells
in the U.S. for approximately $40. It has been suggested that
the price differential between this work and the official
standard reflects the value of the annotations: ...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union
Nov 14 '05 #13

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
by: Anthony Baxter | last post by:
To go along with the 2.4a3 release, here's an updated version of the decorator PEP. It describes the state of decorators as they are in 2.4a3. PEP: 318 Title: Decorators for Functions and...
1
by: George | last post by:
Hi, I am trying to write a query in Oracle which I have not done before, and are having some difficulty getting my result. Please check my query and my results. select max(note.datetime),...
4
by: Stefan Strasser | last post by:
why is delete an expression and not a statement? (in my draft copy of the standard). I was about to ask the same question about "throw" but found an expression case of throw("return boolvalue ? 5...
289
by: napi | last post by:
I think you would agree with me that a C compiler that directly produces Java Byte Code to be run on any JVM is something that is missing to software programmers so far. With such a tool one could...
72
by: Paminu | last post by:
In math this expression: (a < b) && (b < c) would be described as: a < b < c But why is it that in C these two expressions evaluate to something different for the same values of a, b and...
21
by: Helge Jensen | last post by:
I've got some data that has Set structure, that is membership, insert and delete is fast (O(1), hashing). I can't find a System.Collections interface that matches the operations naturally offered...
0
by: ciaran.mchale | last post by:
I used Google to find information about JAXB 2.0 and I ended up downloading a document called "The Java Architecture for XML Binding (JAXB) 2.0: Proposed Final Draft September 30, 2005". ...
93
by: jacob navia | last post by:
In this group there is a bunch of people that call themselves 'regulars' that insist in something called "portability". Portability for them means the least common denominator. Write your code...
4
by: asnowfall | last post by:
If I have white space in the <atag, IE interpretes it as line break. I tried setting "whie-space: pre" and it did not seem to affect. Here is a sample. ...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.