Need suggestions for C links.

List,

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
bit of specialized extensions.

I've plenty of Standards for my industry--a subset of embedded systems
work, but I need more good, "Standard, no extensions" links, as
increasingly in the embedded world standards dictate just that.

I already have:

--The c.l.c FAQ
--The c.l.c IFAQ
--http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/ From what I've seen so far, this is a good
Standard reference, though I've not read it exhaustively.

I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
"knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
strange to me....

Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
right.

The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
general dislike of coding HTML...

Aside from those two items, I'm after anything that can help a herd of
cats . .er . . . variety of C programmers from different backgrounds get
on the "Standard" page.

Thanx

[Keith Thompson]

<cd****@aol.com> writes:

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
bit of specialized extensions. [...] I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
"knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
strange to me....

Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
right.

The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
general dislike of coding HTML...

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

--
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.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-02-26, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

<cd****@aol.com> writes:

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
bit of specialized extensions.

[...]

I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
"knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
strange to me....

Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
right.

The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
general dislike of coding HTML...

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.com> writes:

On 2006-02-26, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.

True, but you can infer operator precedence from the grammar, and even
(I think) from the order of the subsections of section 6.5,
"Expressions".

--
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.

[MrG{DRGN}]

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
-snip

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

--
MrG{DRGN}

[Richard Heathfield]

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Chris Hills]

In article <dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

IT is as portable and anything else. Probably more so.
HTML has all sorts of extensions.

Why is PDF not portable?

If it is not portable why is it universally used for documents that need
to be portable?

There is no way I would ship a document in html. For a start it is
editable.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

<cd****@aol.com> writes:

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
bit of specialized extensions.

[...]

I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
"knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
strange to me....

Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
right.

The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
general dislike of coding HTML...

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <08******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, MrG{DRGN}
<Ia****@here.com> writes

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
-snip

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

As you can put links into PDF files that behave as links in html files.

I this context html is the same as PDF except you can't protect an html
file the same as a PDF.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
be my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

IT is as portable and anything else. Probably more so.
HTML has all sorts of extensions.

So does C. That doesn't mean C isn't portable. And HTML is editable in any
text editor.

Why is PDF not portable?
Here's an extract from my copy of C99:

ÁP;£^]~[ó$~Cj˽pk§y|
!ë^AElzõü«Ôî`I0Ï(~I~]öX~HLÖ^BrW&^O^M.~\±[/À¨òñm)sôg~L^F~H~CÀj^Vu0sO(³¬~^-ÀÝ|
&£~A~NJÞ~[é½Ð\øð}òÈmÙ"é~Yu@W2iPÎÙ«³Ùq¥^EDï-+\ä~H4ÊãÏw^KÖÁãíÃ^];Î~Dìå~R4`^@0oÊ00~H^Bo~IÅÏ~Bàg^^Böd¦^O8^Cìô^A^BJô; ~WÐ沨°^HAä~I~Oß^D¼^_øYÞ^U/©ÈlHÚ~NÅ)^Vt^E~G¨Å^GN=§¡yÄ+C~RJ¾^]~BQ"f~FE*j*ëg^CÍM0zÏÝ:9tå^ZøþàÕµ£i¹k÷Ð˹n<:Áy8¡~I^ CSKåWJÐ×~^~Rô^[Å(~D~Y~W9~L*
aóM~[^E¹^G³Cõ5~Z¡^Ç®X¹^MA~Q^C~T\õRC^UÔN²E¼ÒsßxÆÁÓDLÔ

Nice. Can you read that? I can't. I can't even pronounce it.
If it is not portable why is it universally used for documents that need
to be portable?
It isn't. Whenever I need a document to be portable, I use plain text.
Therefore I am a counter-example, and therefore PDF is not a
universally-used format.
There is no way I would ship a document in html. For a start it is
editable.

There is no way I would ship a document in PDF. For a start it is not easily
editable.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[MrG{DRGN}]

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. If
your're being serious fine. If you're being sarcastic I don't see the need
for it. I had no idea what the acronym PDF represented, and if html is not
as portable as PDF then I understand its use. I'm certainly not so naive as
to think windows is the only operating system in the world. I suppose I
should have simply kept my mouth shut rather than ask an exasperated
question about something I didn't understand. I mainly use windows, but I
have used Linux in the past, and I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
as opposed to. html. I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
cater to my desires, only express confusion and/or frustration with the
choice of format. A lack of knowledge on my part is not an excuse for you to
be sarcastic towards me. Given this I could have posed my question a little
less emotionally, and if this message reads like I'm yelling at you, rest
assured that I'm not.

Thanks

--
MrG{DRGN}

[CBFalconer]

cd****@aol.com wrote:

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient
reference to Standard C, particularly for those who come from
backgrounds with a good bit of specialized extensions.

I've plenty of Standards for my industry--a subset of embedded
systems work, but I need more good, "Standard, no extensions"
links, as increasingly in the embedded world standards dictate
just that.

I already have:

--The c.l.c FAQ
--The c.l.c IFAQ
--http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/ From what I've seen so far, this
is a good Standard reference, though I've not read it
exhaustively.

I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone
reading "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds
coming into the embedded world. Window? What's a window?
Text? Those words are strange to me....

Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in
debugging, along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to
get the details right.

The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite
certain whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table,
apart from a general dislike of coding HTML...

Aside from those two items, I'm after anything that can help a
herd of cats . .er . . . variety of C programmers from different
backgrounds get on the "Standard" page.

See the links in my sig. As far as precedence is concerned, the
standard does not spell out precedence, just BNF for parsing. The
best advice is not to assume any precedence whatsoever beyond
(multiplicative > additive > logical), but to use explicit
parentheses. This way both the writer and the reader will be sure
what is intended.

For my own benefit I maintain a copy of n869.txt with pagination
removed. This is suitable both for quoting and for rapid search
with text tools. A search for "functioname(" will usually yield an
immediate description of any standard function. A not found
immediately shows that such a function is non-standard (with one
exception). More detailed library discussion can be found on the
dinkumware page below.

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
<http://clc-wiki.net> (C-info)

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

<cd****@aol.com> writes:

I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient
reference to Standard C, particularly for those who come from
backgrounds with a good bit of specialized extensions.

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

Not for a website though, that $18 one is for personal use. You'd need
a site license. That's what my company did for a copy of the C++
standard on our internal web pages.

Brian

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

.... snip ...
As you can put links into PDF files that behave as links in html files.

I this context html is the same as PDF except you can't protect an html
file the same as a PDF.

Certainly you can. You just don't publish it. The sole advantage
of PDF over HTML is that it can fairly easily embody diagrams. It
has a major disadvantage in that it will not adapt to the viewers
convenience. HTML has the major advantage that it is fundamentally
text, and thus is viewable, searchable, editable, and useful.

--
Some similarities between GWB and Mussolini:
a) The strut; b) Making war until brought up short:
Mussolini: Ethiopia, France, Greece.
GWB: Afghanistan, Iraq.

[Keith Thompson]

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

See the links in my sig. As far as precedence is concerned, the
standard does not spell out precedence, just BNF for parsing. The
best advice is not to assume any precedence whatsoever beyond
(multiplicative > additive > logical), but to use explicit
parentheses. This way both the writer and the reader will be sure
what is intended.

[...]

Good advice, but I'd say at least (unary > multiplicative > additive >
logical > assignment).

--
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.

[pete]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.com> writes:

The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.

True, but you can infer operator precedence from the grammar, and even
(I think) from the order of the subsections of section 6.5,
"Expressions".

So they say, but I use page 53.

--
pete

[Netocrat]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:48:36 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

[...]

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
available.

It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.

I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
not, their websites are out of date.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

MrG{DRGN} said:

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

Yes. Possibly both.
I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
as opposed to. html.
Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.
I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
cater to my desires,
I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?
A lack of knowledge on my part is not an excuse for you
to be sarcastic towards me.

I agree - but I wasn't gunning for you. Sorry if you got caught in the
crossfire. ;-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Chris Hills]

In article <dt**********@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

MrG{DRGN} said:

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

MrG{DRGN} said:

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.

I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

Yes. Possibly both.

I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
as opposed to. html.

Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.

PDF readers have search facilities built in.

I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
cater to my desires,

I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?

Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
numbers?

HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <pa****************************@dodo.com.au>, Netocrat
<ne******@dodo.com.au> writes

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:48:36 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

[...]

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
available.

It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.

I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
not, their websites are out of date.

I stock the hard copy version

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Charles Krug]

On 2006-02-26, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[...]

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

The Standard is a bit much as a "Daily Reference." It's more on the
order of "WHEN you need it, you need it rather badly, but usually a
brief summary suffices.

I have access to a legit PDF, but I don't wade in every time I need to
figure out why my mallocs are linting.

[Grumble]

Chris Hills wrote:

HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

http://www.google.com/search?q=edit+pdf

Results 1 - 100 of about 75,400,000 for edit pdf. (0.14 seconds)

[Richard G. Riley]

On 2006-02-26, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <dt**********@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

MrG{DRGN} said:

"Richard Heathfield" <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dt**********@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
MrG{DRGN} said:

> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
> be
> my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
portable document format.
I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

Yes. Possibly both.

I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
as opposed to. html.

Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.

PDF readers have search facilities built in.

I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
cater to my desires,

I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?

Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
numbers?

HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

PDF is editable.

Interesting thread : I despise PDF with a passion. When properly
implemented, a PDF is ok. But most I've used plain suck - navigation
is a nightmare and printing invariably buggy.

As it happens, the C standard one is a good one IMO.

--
Remove evomer to reply

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-02-26, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Here's an extract from my copy of C99:

ÁP;£^]~[ó$~Cj˽pk§y|
!ë^AElzõü«Ôî`I0Ï(~I~]öX~HLÖ^BrW&^O^M.~\±[/À¨òñm)sôg~L^F~H~CÀj^Vu0sO(³¬~^-ÀÝ|
&£~A~NJÞ~[é½Ð\øð}òÈmÙ"é~Yu@W2iPÎÙ«³Ùq¥^EDï-+\ä~H4ÊãÏw^KÖÁãíÃ^];Î~Dìå~R4`^@0oÊ00~H^Bo~IÅÏ~Bàg^^Böd¦^O8^Cìô^A^BJô; ~WÐ沨°^HAä~I~Oß^D¼^_øYÞ^U/©ÈlHÚ~NÅ)^Vt^E~G¨Å^GN=§¡yÄ+C~RJ¾^]~BQ"f~FE*j*ëg^CÍM0zÏÝ:9tå^ZøþàÕµ£i¹k÷Ð˹n<:Áy8¡~I^ CSKåWJÐ×~^~Rô^[Å(~D~Y~W9~L*
aóM~[^E¹^G³Cõ5~Z¡^Ç®X¹^MA~Q^C~T\õRC^UÔN²E¼ÒsßxÆÁÓDLÔ

Nice. Can you read that? I can't. I can't even pronounce it.

Just because it's a binary format doesn't mean it's non-portable.

Here's an extract from my copy of c89:

^_~K^H^@ÚX_C^@^CÔý{c^Tǵ/^Lÿ_~_¢6Þ;hðh~D.\^L¶ó`~Pc^R~LÙ~@·s~
Nã^]·4=R~GÑ´2=~C~P^]ûëì¯ù®kÕªêê~QÀÉ{Î!ÁHÝÕu¯Uëú[Þû*קMçgí²¾h
~WS^O?/Ú~U¯üyµ\ùvæ^_~]ÕËæ¸ZøçÕªi^WÕÜ¿ZU~Ki^Eeá#÷t^Aÿ=£WþÕe·ª
Ï:¿½½í_,Û~SeuvÖ,Nü³jq²®Njÿxìÿ¼?ùýï^?¿½ûÉýû~S~QsÞoj | \~IïÎ

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <dt**********@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes

MrG{DRGN} said:

I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
as opposed to. html.
Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.

PDF readers have search facilities built in.

Sure - but I still can't grep the darn thing.

I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
cater to my desires,

I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?

Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
numbers?

If you care enough (and let's face it, for an international standard you
probably *do* care enough), just produce an MD5 hash which you stick
somewhere well-known. Easy.
HTML is editable and PDF is not
Oh, PDF is editable all right. It's just a lot lot lot more awkward to do -
which is a real pain.
which is a major advantage if you are
distributing documents like standards and data sheets.

I'd have thought an even more major advantage of HTML would be that you can
distribute it really easily over the World Wide Web, since browsers already
render HTML just fine (otherwise they wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no
means all of them are equipped to render PDF.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

Just because it's a binary format doesn't mean it's non-portable.
It means that the number of existing applications capable of processing the
document in a meaningful way is significantly lower than if it were in a
text format. If it were in a text format, it could be meaningfully
processed by vim, sed, grep, emacs, head, tail, any of a gazillion other
Unix/Linux utilities, Visual Studio, Brief, Multiedit, edlin, the Borland
IDE, RHIDE, any of a brazillion other Windows utilities, just about any
word processor, CodeWarrior, the ISPF/PDF editor, and so on and so on and
so on, ad nauseam.

Here's an extract from my copy of c89:

^_~K^H^@ÚX_C^@^CÔý{c^Tǵ/^Lÿ_~_¢6Þ;hðh~D.\^L¶ó`~Pc^R~LÙ~@·s~
Nã^]·4=R~GÑ´2=~C~P^]ûëì¯ù®kÕªêê~QÀÉ{Î!ÁHÝÕu¯Uëú[Þû*קMçgí²¾h
~WS^O?/Ú~U¯üyµ\ùvæ^_~]ÕËæ¸ZøçÕªi^WÕÜ¿ZU~Ki^Eeá#÷t^Aÿ=£WþÕe·ª
Ï:¿½½í_,Û~SeuvÖ,Nü³jq²®Njÿxìÿ¼?ùýï^?¿½ûÉýû~S~QsÞoj | \~IïÎ

But to get that, I bet you had to /try/ at least a little bit.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Ben Pfaff]

Charles Krug <cd****@aol.com> writes:

The Standard is a bit much as a "Daily Reference." It's more on the
order of "WHEN you need it, you need it rather badly, but usually a
brief summary suffices.

If you're familiar with the standard, you can easily use it as a
daily reference. It's the only C reference I use on a regular
basis.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

[MrG{DRGN}]

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

-Snip

I agree - but I wasn't gunning for you. Sorry if you got caught in the
crossfire. ;-)

Fair enough Richard. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your intent.

Take care

--
MrG{DRGN}

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

.... snip ...
I'd have thought an even more major advantage of HTML would be
that you can distribute it really easily over the World Wide Web,
since browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

[Netocrat]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:31:27 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <pa****************************@dodo.com.au>, Netocrat
<ne******@dodo.com.au> writes

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:48:36 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
[e-mail]> writes

[...]

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
available.

It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.

I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
not, their websites are out of date.

I stock the hard copy version

Oh, I didn't twig from your previous post that you actually sell it. Do
you have a link that could be added to the wiki page? I searched
through your site a bit without turning one up, bar an invitation to
email you for a copy in your column vol 11.7.

I also noticed that in that column you mention the decline of compiler
certification due to expensiveness. There's recently been suggestion in
c.s.c that a test suite for compilers be part of the C Standard as it is
for Ada's Standard, to avoid the perceived meaninglessness of the "one
program" requirement of 5.2.4 - is that something you'd advocate?

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

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.
Most inconvenient. Obviously it's the fault of the /browser/ (although it
redeems itself somewhat by restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is
restarted), but it does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my
antipathy for PDF.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard G. Riley]

On 2006-02-27, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.
Most inconvenient. Obviously it's the fault of the /browser/ (although it
redeems itself somewhat by restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is
restarted), but it does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my
antipathy for PDF.

Much as I dislike PDF, it is quite clear that your browser is either
incapable of loading a PDF plugin or your OS/Desktop is badly
configured since millions of others seem to use PDF just fine.

My own antipathy towards PDF wouldnt lead me into besmirching it at every
opportunity especially when it is clear that your lack of a PDF viewer is a
personal choice. The crash when you choose not to download notwithstanding.
--
Remove evomer to reply

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard G. Riley said:

Much as I dislike PDF, it is quite clear that your browser is either
incapable of loading a PDF plugin or your OS/Desktop is badly
configured since millions of others seem to use PDF just fine.
Well, it's the former. It's a crap browser, I agree.
My own antipathy towards PDF wouldnt lead me into besmirching it at every
opportunity especially when it is clear that your lack of a PDF viewer is
a personal choice. The crash when you choose not to download
notwithstanding.

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard G. Riley]

On 2006-02-27, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Richard G. Riley said:

Much as I dislike PDF, it is quite clear that your browser is either
incapable of loading a PDF plugin or your OS/Desktop is badly
configured since millions of others seem to use PDF just fine.

Well, it's the former. It's a crap browser, I agree.

My own antipathy towards PDF wouldnt lead me into besmirching it at every
opportunity especially when it is clear that your lack of a PDF viewer is
a personal choice. The crash when you choose not to download
notwithstanding.

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

That will be a relief to PDF authors everywhere :)

In all seriousness, PDF is about there. I make no assumptions on your
HW/OS so cant really say which browser is best for you, but I must say
that I find firefox 1.5 on Linux rock solid with PDF these days, and
certainly dont shy from reading them as in the past. Broadband, of
course helps.

Hell, since I got a HP laserjet I can almost say that I like
postscript too: and *that*, at home, was always a very sore subject...

--
Remove evomer to reply

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:
[...]

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

(I'm not really responding to this particular followup, just jumping
into the discussion.)

PDF and HTML serve two different, but related, purposes. PDF, unlike
HTML, allows the author to control the page layout of the document
(try referring to "page 42" of an HTML document). If I decide I want
a hard copy of the standard, I can be sure it will look like your hard
copy of the standard. A PDF document is also conveniently monolithic;
an HTML version of the standard would be made up of multiple
individual documents, and would probably have to be made available in
a zip file or something similar. Searching a bundle of HTML pages is,
in some ways, more difficult than search a single PDF file (though
with the latter you're limited to using PDF-specific tools). Since
previous ISO standards have tended to be available only on paper, PDF
is arguably the most logical electronic format.

(The counter argument is that it's the information, not the page
layout, that's important, and page numbers are irrelevant given
consistent section and paragraph numbers.)

I find PDF documents to be reasonably useful in my environment (Adobe
Reader 7 on a 1600x1200 monitor); I understand that that's not the
case for everyone.

Also, Adobe Reader does have a "Save as text" feature, and I suspect
other PDF readers do as well. Some PDFs may have security features
that prevent this from working (my copy of the actual C99 standard
isn't handy at the moment), but it does work for n1124.pdf (C99 + TC1
+ TC2), which is my main language reference at the moment.

--
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.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-02-27, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:
[...]

No no no, I /can/ view PDF - by right-clicking, downloading the PDF file
itself, saving it locally, and viewing it via gv or xpdf. But what a
palaver, just to look at a document "on the Web"! I rarely bother. (But I
do *sometimes* bother.)

(I'm not really responding to this particular followup, just jumping
into the discussion.)

PDF and HTML serve two different, but related, purposes. PDF, unlike
HTML, allows the author to control the page layout of the document
(try referring to "page 42" of an HTML document). If I decide I want
a hard copy of the standard, I can be sure it will look like your hard
copy of the standard. A PDF document is also conveniently monolithic;
an HTML version of the standard would be made up of multiple
individual documents, and would probably have to be made available in
a zip file or something similar. Searching a bundle of HTML pages is,
in some ways, more difficult than search a single PDF file (though
with the latter you're limited to using PDF-specific tools). Since
previous ISO standards have tended to be available only on paper, PDF
is arguably the most logical electronic format.

(The counter argument is that it's the information, not the page
layout, that's important, and page numbers are irrelevant given
consistent section and paragraph numbers.)

I find PDF documents to be reasonably useful in my environment (Adobe
Reader 7 on a 1600x1200 monitor); I understand that that's not the
case for everyone.

Also, Adobe Reader does have a "Save as text" feature, and I suspect
other PDF readers do as well. Some PDFs may have security features
that prevent this from working (my copy of the actual C99 standard
isn't handy at the moment), but it does work for n1124.pdf (C99 + TC1
+ TC2), which is my main language reference at the moment.

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.com> writes:

On 2006-02-27, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

[...]

Also, Adobe Reader does have a "Save as text" feature, and I suspect
other PDF readers do as well. Some PDFs may have security features
that prevent this from working (my copy of the actual C99 standard
isn't handy at the moment), but it does work for n1124.pdf (C99 + TC1
+ TC2), which is my main language reference at the moment.

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

Yes; it's an Alpine Race Results and Penalty Report.

A Google search got about half a dozen hits, but as far as I can tell
none of them lead to a plain-text copy of n1124.pdf.

It's easy enough to generate your own *if* you have the right
software; I decline to speculate on how making such a copy publicly
available would interact with copyright law.

--
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.

[Pedro Graca]

Jordan Abel wrote:

Is there perhaps an n1124.txt out there?

http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/

--
If you're posting through Google read <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google>

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:59:35 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't,
out of interest, why not?*
so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.

You could consider a different browser. I never experience this w/
Firefox...

Mark McIntyre
*I admit to being quite annoyed with Acrobat Readers' "autoupdate
feature" which told me I needed a patch and then surripticiously
installed something called "adobe photoshop album starter edition"
which modified all my image and video viewing / editing / managing
associations without asking me, so that my scanner now tries to use
this rubbish instead of the proper OCR and image handling software I
paid good money for.

Luckily I keep all my features numbered for just such an occasion, and
application of a Really Big Naily Stick sorted it out.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably
fouls up some of the browsers normal facilities.

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF
document, my browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe
software to read it. Of course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and
the browser promptly crashes. Most inconvenient. Obviously it's
the fault of the /browser/ (although it redeems itself somewhat by
restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is+ restarted), but it
does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my antipathy for PDF.

Well, that is the fault of your browser and/or your configuration
of it. I use Firefox for browsing, and it has been told to simply
download all pdfs to a disk file. If I wish I can then read it
with acroreader or ghostscript at my leisure, or even immediately.
Firefox seems quite solid and safe, and available for most
systems. I could configure Netscape 4.7x the same way. Don't know
about the standard security leak for Windoze.

The download mechanism displays the length, and is easily aborted.
It also avoids downloading twice (once for display, again to a
file) if you want to keep the file.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

Obviously it's
the fault of the /browser/ [...]

Well, that is the fault of your browser

Perhaps it's the fault of my browser.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:59:35 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document,
my browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it.
Of course, I don't,

out of interest, why not?*

Partly because I'm a hard-hearted, callous, unforgiving, grudge-holding
curmudgeon who still hasn't forgiven Adobe for the stunt they pulled about
200 years ago w.r.t. Dmitri Sklyarov, and partly because I am not convinced
that Adobe's reader is going to work terribly well on Linux, and I don't
want to expend time, energy and pain finding out.

so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.

You could consider a different browser. I never experience this w/
Firefox...

Oh, I don't /always/ use galeon. sometimes I use Konqueror. Or lynx. Or
wget. Or Netscape. Or whatever. (And on the kids' Windows machine, I make
them use Firefox. I've threatened them with a disk format if they so much
as breathe in the direction of IE.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Micah Cowan]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

browsers already render HTML just fine (otherwise they
wouldn't be browsers), whereas by no means all of them are
equipped to render PDF.

In fact I know of none. They all seem to rely on using some sort
of ancilliary decoding mechanism, the use of which invariably fouls
up some of the browsers normal facilities.

Whenever I make the mistake of clicking on a hyperlink to a PDF document, my
browser asks me if I want to download some Adobe software to read it. Of
course, I don't, so I click "cancel", and the browser promptly crashes.
Most inconvenient. Obviously it's the fault of the /browser/ (although it
redeems itself somewhat by restoring ALL its sessions correctly when it is
restarted), but it does nevertheless add yet another frisson to my
antipathy for PDF.

Can't you just register xpdf with Galeon (specific browser gleaned
from else-thread)? At the least, it seems like putting it in your
..mailcap should solve it.

This certainly doesn't put me in good favor of Galeon... But as a
lover of typography, I have a certain fondness for PDF and some other
related Adobe technologies.

[Richard Heathfield]

Micah Cowan said:

Can't you just register xpdf with Galeon (specific browser gleaned
from else-thread)?

You remind me of me. Whenever my wife puts a problem to me, I try to provide
her with a solution. To me, this is just plain common sense. Problem,
solution. Easy.

But she doesn't *want* a solution. She just wants me to say "there, there,
poor dear... I understand, I really do."

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Richard Bos]

"MrG{DRGN}" <Ia****@here.com> wrote:

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...

How about the standard itself?

You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
still available.

Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated.

For one, HTML is a pain in the backside to print (and yes, occasionally
you do want to print excerpts). For another, HTML looks differently on
IE, on FireFox, Opera, whatever - and how are you going to display the
formulae used in, e.g., the definition of the floating point formats, in
Lynx? Remember, this is an official Standard - clarity is important, and
confusion undesirable.

Richard

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-02-28, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

"MrG{DRGN}" <Ia****@here.com> wrote:

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.org> wrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...

> How about the standard itself?
>
> You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
> FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
> which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
>
> That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
> C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
> still available.
Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
navigated.

For one, HTML is a pain in the backside to print (and yes, occasionally
you do want to print excerpts). For another, HTML looks differently on
IE, on FireFox, Opera, whatever - and how are you going to display the
formulae used in, e.g., the definition of the floating point formats, in
Lynx?

alt text for the image could be the TeX or eqn version of the formula.
Remember, this is an official Standard - clarity is important, and
confusion undesirable.
Formatting differences don't usually risk changing the meaning.
Richard

[Ben Bacarisse]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:35:11 +0000, Jordan Abel wrote:

Remember, this is an official Standard - clarity is important, and
confusion undesirable.

Formatting differences don't usually risk changing the meaning.

You forgotten the great "is this full stop italic?" debate. Cyber legend
has it that this question was key to disambiguating one part of the Algol
68 definition!

--
Ben.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-02-28, Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:35:11 +0000, Jordan Abel wrote:

Remember, this is an official Standard - clarity is important, and
confusion undesirable.

Formatting differences don't usually risk changing the meaning.

You forgotten the great "is this full stop italic?" debate. Cyber legend
has it that this question was key to disambiguating one part of the Algol
68 definition!

I can't find anywhere in my c89 [notably, a plaintext draft] where a
formatting question makes it unclear to me. Perhaps the algol standard
was poorly written.

[Ben Pfaff]

Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.uk> writes:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:35:11 +0000, Jordan Abel wrote:

Remember, this is an official Standard - clarity is important, and
confusion undesirable.

Formatting differences don't usually risk changing the meaning.

You forgotten the great "is this full stop italic?" debate. Cyber legend
has it that this question was key to disambiguating one part of the Algol
68 definition!

It is easier to examine HTML to determine whether a character is
italic than it is to examine PDF to determine whether a character
is italic.
--
"It would be a much better example of undefined behavior
if the behavior were undefined."
--Michael Rubenstein

[Micah Cowan]

Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:

Micah Cowan said:

Can't you just register xpdf with Galeon (specific browser gleaned
from else-thread)?

You remind me of me. Whenever my wife puts a problem to me, I try to provide
her with a solution. To me, this is just plain common sense. Problem,
solution. Easy.

But she doesn't *want* a solution. She just wants me to say "there, there,
poor dear... I understand, I really do."

So, you're saying you didn't want me to help you find a
solution... :-)

Seriously, though, I think this is a point that every man should
memorize, as it is an a very frequent truth regarding the difference
between men and women and how they deal with conversation. Women often
just want someone to talk to, which men mistake for a request for a
solution.

Even more seriously, I think we've now gone /quite/ off-topic... :-)