C FAQ wiki

[Giannis Papadopoulos]

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ wikis?

--
one's freedom stops where others' begin

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

[Steve Summit]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

[e-mail] (Anonymous 7843) writes:

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

True, and if I were worried about copyright (which for the most
part I'm not), I could assert it on the questions, too, since
they're *not* verbatim copies of any actually-posted questions;
they're all paraphrased. (This actually came in handy, once,
in deflecting the criticisms of a somewhat confused, irate
individual. Set your wayback machine to <http://groups.google.com/
group/comp.lang.c/msg/b4b8a8deaff89a63>, if you're curious.)

But, as I said, I'm not too worried about copyright, and (as far
as the book-length version of the FAQ list is concerned) I doubt
Addison-Wesley is too concerned any more, either. And I do
retain the right to post the entire content of the book to the
net (a right which I've been threatening/promising to exercise
for an uncomfortable number of years now), though I'm not sure
how that right would translate into the proposed "c.l.c FAQ wiki".

Steve Summit
sc*@eskimo.com

[Joe Wright]

Steve Summit wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Well, he doesn't post very often nowadays...

Too true, alas. (As you can see, it took me rather a while to
pick up on this thread. :-( )

His FAQ, however, is his, not ours. He has copyright over it.
Seen that way, I don't think it's unreasonable to describe it
as "someone else's"...

For what it's worth, copyright issues aside, I do try not to be
too possessive of it, or use the word "my" to qualify it. And in
a very important way it does "belong" to the group -- as I wrote
in the Preface,

This book also retains, I hope, the philosophy of correct
C programming which I began learning when I started
reading net.lang.c...

I was the one who stuck his neck out and started writing
the Frequent questions down, but I would hate to give the
impression that the answers are somehow mine.

Steve Summit
sc*@eskimo.com

How impressively humble. You clearly deserve more credit than you demand
here. Your stock, in my book, has gone up.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Richard Heathfield]

Steve Summit said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Well, he doesn't post very often nowadays...

Too true, alas. (As you can see, it took me rather a while to
pick up on this thread. :-( )

Better late than never. :-)

Now that you appear to be fully awake, I'd be curious to know your attitude
to a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After all, you would
be the other "of course!" candidate for Chief Cabalier alongside Chris*
Torek (who has remained ominously silent on the subject).

Would you be:

(a) open to the idea of a C FAQ wiki?
(b) prepared to perform the necessary incantations and
rune-casting required for deciding on Cabal members?
*I initially mistyped this as "Christ" instead of "Chris" - apologies to
Jesus and Chris, and definitely in that order!
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Steve Summit said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Well, he doesn't post very often nowadays...
Too true, alas. (As you can see, it took me rather a while to
pick up on this thread. :-( )

Better late than never. :-)

Now that you appear to be fully awake, I'd be curious to know your attitude
to a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After all, you would
be the other "of course!" candidate for Chief Cabalier alongside Chris*
Torek (who has remained ominously silent on the subject).

Would you be:

(a) open to the idea of a C FAQ wiki?
(b) prepared to perform the necessary incantations and
rune-casting required for deciding on Cabal members?

As a matter of fact (rather than principal) whoever is hosting it has
ultimate power, after all if you have root access on the box you can do
what you want to it. On which subject, I've put up an initial site at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/ with some initial discussions between a
few of us on organisation. Others are welcome and will be given full
privilege on request (including the ability to grant privilege) as long
as one of us recognises you and think you have a sufficient degree of
(un)common sense.

I have absolutely no intention of trying to control the site myself
since I know others here know more about C than I do. The only thing I
intend to keep personal control of is the software installed and running
on the machine. I will happily install/upgrade SW within reason.
*I initially mistyped this as "Christ" instead of "Chris" - apologies to
Jesus and Chris, and definitely in that order!

IRTA Jesus Chris...
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Richard Heathfield]

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Steve Summit said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Well, he doesn't post very often nowadays...

Too true, alas. (As you can see, it took me rather a while to
pick up on this thread. :-( )
Better late than never. :-)

Now that you appear to be fully awake, I'd be curious to know your
attitude to a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After
all, you would be the other "of course!" candidate for Chief Cabalier
alongside Chris* Torek (who has remained ominously silent on the
subject).

Would you be:

(a) open to the idea of a C FAQ wiki?
(b) prepared to perform the necessary incantations and
rune-casting required for deciding on Cabal members?

As a matter of fact (rather than principal) whoever is hosting it has
ultimate power, after all if you have root access on the box you can do
what you want to it.

So either you'd have to place amazing trust in the host, or you'd have to
come up with a way to make up a RAIH on which to host the wiki.
On which subject, I've put up an initial site at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/ with some initial discussions between a
few of us on organisation.
The few I saw were: FlashGordon, Ipapadop, and Netocrat.

What you actually need is the likes of Martin Ambuhl, Christian Bau, Mark
Brader, Billy Chambless, Dann Corbit, Chris Dollin, Chuck Falconer, Jack
Klein, Kaz Kylheku, Lawrence Kirby, Mikey Lee, Joe Maun, Ben Pfaff, Dan
Pop, Sunil Rao, Will Rose, Richard Stamp, Steve Summit, Dave Thompson,
Keith Thompson, Chris Torek (aargh, did it again), Stephan Wilms, Dik
Winter, ...

You know... the Cabal!
Others are welcome and will be given full
privilege on request (including the ability to grant privilege) as long
as one of us recognises you and think you have a sufficient degree of
(un)common sense.

Let me know when you have Chris or Steve on board, or at least six others
out of those I listed above. Or Dennis Ritchie, of course.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain

[Netocrat]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:51:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[on Steve Summit's participation in this thread]

Now that you appear to be fully awake, I'd be curious to know your
attitude to a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After
all, you would be the other "of course!" candidate for Chief Cabalier
alongside Chris* Torek (who has remained ominously silent on the
subject).

[...] As a matter of fact (rather than principal) whoever is hosting it has
ultimate power, after all if you have root access on the box you can do
what you want to it.
So either you'd have to place amazing trust in the host, or you'd have
to come up with a way to make up a RAIH on which to host the wiki.

On which subject, I've put up an initial site at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/ with some initial discussions between a
few of us on organisation.

The few I saw were: FlashGordon, Ipapadop, and Netocrat.

To date, we three are the active planners, but we welcome any
comp.lang.c contributors who wish to join us.

[...]

Others are welcome and will be given full privilege on request
(including the ability to grant privilege) as long as one of us
recognises you and think you have a sufficient degree of (un)common
sense.

The wording of parts of Flash Gordon's post may have been a little
hasty and ill-considered, particularly regarding the host having
"ultimate power" over the site and "as long as one of us recognises
you" possibly seeming to imply that the current 3 planners confer some
special status upon themselves.

In fact, we want the site to succeed and are not at all pretentious in
our attitude. There is some ambiguity as to how to decide who should
be allowed to moderate/edit, and any ideas on that issue are welcome.
Ultimately I'd like to develop an endorsement/reputation system that
wouldn't require restricted access at all but (a) that wiki technology
doesn't exist yet and it's not clear that it would have the support of
the more senior/expert comp.lang.c contributors and (b) it is simplest
to try a natural approach of adding people as moderators by invitation
or request which may work until/unless conflict develops; this is the
idea that Flash was attempting to communicate.

We don't consider ourselves owners of the wiki; we want c.l.c regulars
to feel (justifiably, by whatever means are most appropriate) that they
communally own it.

Trust is definitely an issue. The Mediawiki software that we're using
may support something like a RAIH; if not then it does at least have
reasonable export/import backup support. The minimal trust solution
that I can think of is to find a way of sharing
ownership/administration of the domain name amongst the moderators.
That way if the administrator of a machine screws around, the
moderators can simply point the domain to a more trustworthy machine
set up from backups.

This requires the registrar of the domain to recognise that the
domain's ownership is shared. I don't know if this is currently
possible. OTOH, there is a precedent in that financial institutions
generally allow shared accounts.

[reordered] What you actually need is the likes of Martin Ambuhl, Christian Bau,
Mark Brader, Billy Chambless, Dann Corbit, Chris Dollin, Chuck Falconer,
Jack Klein, Kaz Kylheku, Lawrence Kirby, Mikey Lee, Joe Maun, Ben Pfaff,
Dan Pop, Sunil Rao, Will Rose, Richard Stamp, Steve Summit, Dave
Thompson, Keith Thompson, Chris Torek (aargh, did it again), Stephan
Wilms, Dik Winter, ... [...] Let me know when you have Chris or Steve on board, or at least six
others out of those I listed above. Or Dennis Ritchie, of course.

The group of people you proposed seem like good candidates as those who
should have moderation/edit access to a comp.lang.c wiki. Their
input/advice would be welcome and should any of them choose to create
an account on the planning site as referenced above, they would of
course also be given sysop privileges.

We have privately contacted Steve Summit regarding whether he would be
willing to support a comp.lang.c wiki site by donating the FAQ under
the copyright we propose, which is the GNU FDL. I won't disclose the
details of his response without his permission, but it was at least
positive. I hope that he continues to participate in this thread as
time allows.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[Richard Heathfield]

Netocrat said:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:51:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

What you actually need is the likes of Martin Ambuhl, Christian Bau,
Mark Brader, Billy Chambless, Dann Corbit, Chris Dollin, Chuck Falconer,
Jack Klein, Kaz Kylheku, Lawrence Kirby, Mikey Lee, Joe Maun, Ben Pfaff,
Dan Pop, Sunil Rao, Will Rose, Richard Stamp, Steve Summit, Dave
Thompson, Keith Thompson, Chris Torek (aargh, did it again), Stephan
Wilms, Dik Winter, ... [...]

Let me know when you have Chris or Steve on board, or at least six
others out of those I listed above. Or Dennis Ritchie, of course.

<snip>
We have privately contacted Steve Summit regarding whether he would be
willing to support a comp.lang.c wiki site by donating the FAQ under
the copyright we propose, which is the GNU FDL. I won't disclose the
details of his response without his permission, but it was at least
positive. I hope that he continues to participate in this thread as
time allows.

If he lets you use the FAQ as an initial base for the project, you're
halfway home - I reckon quite a few of the clc experts would be prepared to
follow that up positively, since they've secretly been itching to edit the
FAQ for years.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Flash Gordon said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Steve Summit said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Well, he doesn't post very often nowadays...

Too true, alas. (As you can see, it took me rather a while to
pick up on this thread. :-( )

Better late than never. :-)

Now that you appear to be fully awake, I'd be curious to know your
attitude to a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After
all, you would be the other "of course!" candidate for Chief Cabalier
alongside Chris* Torek (who has remained ominously silent on the
subject).

Would you be:

(a) open to the idea of a C FAQ wiki?
(b) prepared to perform the necessary incantations and
rune-casting required for deciding on Cabal members?

As a matter of fact (rather than principal) whoever is hosting it has
ultimate power, after all if you have root access on the box you can do
what you want to it.

So either you'd have to place amazing trust in the host, or you'd have to
come up with a way to make up a RAIH on which to host the wiki.

It has been suggested privately that it might have looked like I am on a
power trip, if so I apologise. This was not my intent and, indeed, I
would have no objection to any other hosting arrangements.

I have every intention of bowing to majority verdict, It's just that I
will have to action any changes that require root access whilst I am
doing the hosting on the current system since I can't afford to give
root access to people I don't know personally since I am also hosting
other stuff for friends.

I am merely the person who has initially stepped forward to provide as
flexible hosting as possible.

On which subject, I've put up an initial site at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/ with some initial discussions between a
few of us on organisation.

The few I saw were: FlashGordon, Ipapadop, and Netocrat.

What you actually need is the likes of Martin Ambuhl, Christian Bau, Mark
Brader, Billy Chambless, Dann Corbit, Chris Dollin, Chuck Falconer, Jack
Klein, Kaz Kylheku, Lawrence Kirby, Mikey Lee, Joe Maun, Ben Pfaff, Dan
Pop, Sunil Rao, Will Rose, Richard Stamp, Steve Summit, Dave Thompson,
Keith Thompson, Chris Torek (aargh, did it again), Stephan Wilms, Dik
Winter, ...

You know... the Cabal!

A few names there I don't recognise, but I entirely agree with those I
do and would bow to their superior knowledge of standard C.

Others are welcome and will be given full
privilege on request (including the ability to grant privilege) as long
as one of us recognises you and think you have a sufficient degree of
(un)common sense.

Let me know when you have Chris or Steve on board, or at least six others
out of those I listed above. Or Dennis Ritchie, of course.

We will, of course, post here when we have news. Discussions were only
taken off here so that we don't clutter up the group with off topic
discussions about Wiki's etc. We are not trying to exclude people and,
indeed, we would welcome more input and will give away Wiki sysop
privileges and access to the back end DB if people want the access.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Mark B]

<we******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Giannis Papadopoulos wrote:

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ wikis?

Well there is this:

http://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/Main_Page

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark B said:

<we******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Giannis Papadopoulos wrote:

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ wikis?

Well there is this:

http://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/Main_Page

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

So I went. And I looked. And I corrected a few silly stupid problems with
their description of "hello world". And I hacked at the rather uncritical
praise of NRIC. And I thought "no, this is no good, the whole tone of the
wikipedia C entry is "this language is broken, use something else instead"
- and no wonder, because it was written by people who really, really don't
understand what it's about.

No, if we're going to have a C FAQ wiki, let's have a good one, that starts
from a solid base, not a heap of junk like the article on wikipedia.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Netocrat]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:08:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Mark B said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

So I went. And I looked. And I corrected a few silly stupid problems
[a]nd uncritical praise ... it was written by people who really, really
don't understand what it's about.

No, if we're going to have a C FAQ wiki, let's have a good one, that
starts from a solid base

[...]

So what should the content of a clc wiki be?

A general FAQ list is obvious and, assuming that we gain Steve's
permission to start from the current FAQ contents, is a good base. I've
made some other suggestions on the planning wiki:
* supportable and representative clc views (e.g. that casting should
be avoided where possible - this is already part of the faq from memory;
gets should not be used; the definition of lvalue is broken in C99)
* more variable representative clc views (e.g. style issues); this content
may include various alternatives and their pros and cons
* opinion pieces (e.g. on a proposed change/addition to the standard)
* different ways to solve a problem and their pros and cons (e.g. overflow
checking on integer arithmetic)

It needn't duplicate content such as that in the wikipedia article, which
although it may have a bias, is not wildly inaccurate. It makes sense for
wikipedia to be the primary source for communally-maintained encyclopedic
knowledge. The clc wiki would be the source to consult for peer-reviewed
expert knowledge/advice/opinion on portable, standard C.

The current FAQ structure i.e. sectioned and numbered by question - can be
imported into the wiki with some work (I've put up a demonstration
on the planning wiki at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/wiki/C...:FAQ_top_level) - probably a
reasonably sophisticated script could automate it.

Whether all additional content should be fit into that structure is an
open question, but it seems reasonable given the full-text search
functionality.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[Ravi Uday]

So are you guys really putting in a new FAQ..
Sounds exciting !!!
will there be a tape-cutting ceremony :-)

- Ravi

Netocrat wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:08:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Mark B said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

So I went. And I looked. And I corrected a few silly stupid problems
[a]nd uncritical praise ... it was written by people who really, really
don't understand what it's about.

No, if we're going to have a C FAQ wiki, let's have a good one, that
starts from a solid base

[...]

So what should the content of a clc wiki be?

A general FAQ list is obvious and, assuming that we gain Steve's
permission to start from the current FAQ contents, is a good base. I've
made some other suggestions on the planning wiki:
* supportable and representative clc views (e.g. that casting should
be avoided where possible - this is already part of the faq from memory;
gets should not be used; the definition of lvalue is broken in C99)
* more variable representative clc views (e.g. style issues); this content
may include various alternatives and their pros and cons
* opinion pieces (e.g. on a proposed change/addition to the standard)
* different ways to solve a problem and their pros and cons (e.g. overflow
checking on integer arithmetic)

It needn't duplicate content such as that in the wikipedia article, which
although it may have a bias, is not wildly inaccurate. It makes sense for
wikipedia to be the primary source for communally-maintained encyclopedic
knowledge. The clc wiki would be the source to consult for peer-reviewed
expert knowledge/advice/opinion on portable, standard C.

The current FAQ structure i.e. sectioned and numbered by question - can be
imported into the wiki with some work (I've put up a demonstration
on the planning wiki at
http://clc.flash-gordon.me.uk/wiki/C...:FAQ_top_level) - probably a
reasonably sophisticated script could automate it.

Whether all additional content should be fit into that structure is an
open question, but it seems reasonable given the full-text search
functionality.

[Netocrat]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:23:18 +0530, Ravi Uday wrote:

So are you guys really putting in a new FAQ..
Sounds exciting !!!
I'm glad you think so. It's a good way to distribute the load of
maintaining a consistently high-quality FAQ and to allow the senior group
members to permanently document their advice/knowledge in a better
structure than newsgroup archives.

Those of us not acting as editors can suggest new content or corrections
via the discussion page of each content page. A separate more public
section of the wiki for less official tips and tricks could be created if
there's a demand.
will there be a tape-cutting ceremony :-)

Sure - create a streaming video and it can be broadcast at an official
opening. The creative possibilities are boundless. On that note, a site
logo is also missing.

--
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

[Mark B]

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dg**********@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

Mark B said:

<we******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Giannis Papadopoulos wrote:
Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ
wikis?

Well there is this:

http://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/Main_Page
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

So I went. And I looked. And I corrected a few silly stupid problems with
their description of "hello world". And I hacked at the rather uncritical
praise of NRIC. And I thought "no, this is no good, the whole tone of the
wikipedia C entry is "this language is broken, use something else instead"

Change the tone! I'm certain that you (along with a few other clc regulars)
could whip that entry into shape in no time!
- and no wonder, because it was written by people who really, really don't
understand what it's about.
Ah, but that could be easily changed, no? I noticed Steve Summit has
personally worked on that particular wiki in the past... a few more clc
regulars and you could make it the most informative wiki on wikipedia!
No, if we're going to have a C FAQ wiki, let's have a good one, that
starts
from a solid base, not a heap of junk like the article on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
I like their title: 'C programming language'. At first glance it looks like
the
definitive wiki for the 'C programming language'... you have the capability
to make it just that.
Benefits: the name - already established (links to) - references already
written - it needs you!
Disadvantages: current tone doesn't convey what you want it to
Solution: Throw out the $*** you don't like and make it the official clc
wiki!

[Chris Torek]

In article <dg**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

... a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After all,
you [Steve Summit] would be the other "of course!" candidate for
Chief Cabalier alongside Chris Torek (who has remained ominously
silent on the subject).

I have had a little too much Real Life going on lately. :-)

(I am not going to commit to working on such a wiki, though.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Torek said:

In article <dg**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

... a C FAQ wiki, controlled (naturally!) by the Cabal. After all,
you [Steve Summit] would be the other "of course!" candidate for
Chief Cabalier alongside Chris Torek (who has remained ominously
silent on the subject).
I have had a little too much Real Life going on lately. :-)

I know that feeling. Usenet United 1, Real Life Wanderers 6 (after extra
time).

(I am not going to commit to working on such a wiki, though.)

Understandable, but you are one of the very few people in clc who has the
respect of the entire newsgroup and could thus be trusted to pick an
initial cadre of cabaliers who might be prepared to do such work, if they
had the Summit FAQ as a starting point (which seems to be the case). That
in itself is not an enviable task, I agree, but if you don't pick such a
cadre, and if Steve doesn't do it, and if dmr(!) doesn't do it, we'll be
right out of universally respected people to pick that cadre, which means
either the wiki won't happen at all, in which case we will be stuck with
the FAQ "as is" (and we all know, especially Steve, that it's not perfect),
or it'll be done by a bunch of banana-brained void mainers who have the
ability to edit and won't be afraid to (ab)use it.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)