What is the De Jure Standard Text for Learning C++ These Days?

[no]

Thanks- I intend to learn with Microsoft Tools but my plans are to
stay within the embedded industry.

[Flash Gordon]

[e-mail] wrote, On 22/09/08 22:18:

Thanks- I intend to learn with Microsoft Tools but my plans are to
stay within the embedded industry.

I suggest you start by learning that C and C++ are different languages.
Having achieved that look at the name of this group and what other
groups with similar names exist. This exercise should lead you to
understanding that you have posted in the wrong place, but just in case
you can't work it out the name of the group dealing with C++ is
comp.lang.c++
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to sm**@spam.causeway.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

[jameskuyper]

[e-mail] wrote:

Thanks- I intend to learn with Microsoft Tools but my plans are to
stay within the embedded industry.

Item 1: this is comp.lang.c, C is not the same language as C++. Your
question should be posted on comp.lang.c++.

Item 2: there is a De Jure standard for C++. There are good texts for
learning C++ (you'll get better recommendations than I could possibly
give you on comp.lang.c++). However, there de-jure standard is NOT one
of those texts. The standard is a reference work, designed primarily
for the use of compiler developers, to make sure that they know
precisely what they requirements are for their implementations of C++,
and for experienced conscientious programmers, to make sure exactly
what the requirements are for their code. It is not written as a tool
for learning C++, and it is in fact lousy for that purpose.

Therefore, you need to decide: do you want the de-jure standard for C+
+, or do you want a text that is useful for learning standard C++?

I'd personally recommend finding a copy of n2461.pdf.
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2461.pdf>
This is a draft of the next version of the C++ standard, so it
contains many changes from the de-jure standard that haven't been
approved yet. However, it's free, unlike the de-jure standard, and it
contains mostly the same content as the de-jure standard. Where they
differ, in the long run, n2461.pdf will probably be more relevant than
the de-jure standard. Neither one is a completely accurate description
of currently available compilers; many (most?) existing
implementations of C++ are still catching up to the de-jure standard,
while some of them have already started implementing some of the new
features described in n2461.pdf.

[CBFalconer]

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
I'd personally recommend finding a copy of n2461.pdf.
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2461.pdf>
This is a draft of the next version of the C++ standard, so it
contains many changes from the de-jure standard that haven't been
approved yet. However, it's free, unlike the de-jure standard,
and it contains mostly the same content as the de-jure standard.
Where they differ, in the long run, n2461.pdf will probably be
more relevant than the de-jure standard. Neither one is a
completely accurate description of currently available compilers;
many (most?) existing implementations of C++ are still catching
up to the de-jure standard, while some of them have already
started implementing some of the new features described in
n2461.pdf.

You would be better off with n1336.pdf, which is the C99 standard
plus all revisions and corrections made to it since issue, and
published in Aug 2008. n2461 is something new, under
consideration. You can also get N869 in text form, which is the
last C99 draft published in text form. You can find a useful
version at:

<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/n869_txt.bz2>

which is a bzip2 compressed version, and fairly compact.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Leo_Havm=F8ller?=]

<[e-mail] in message
news:1n********************************@4ax.com...

Thanks- I intend to learn with Microsoft Tools but my plans are to
stay within the embedded industry.

http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/

Leo Havmøller.

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
... snip ...

>>
I'd personally recommend finding a copy of n2461.pdf.
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2461.pdf>
This is a draft of the next version of the C++ standard, so it
contains many changes from the de-jure standard that haven't been
approved yet. However, it's free, unlike the de-jure standard,
and it contains mostly the same content as the de-jure standard.
Where they differ, in the long run, n2461.pdf will probably be
more relevant than the de-jure standard. Neither one is a
completely accurate description of currently available compilers;
many (most?) existing implementations of C++ are still catching
up to the de-jure standard, while some of them have already
started implementing some of the new features described in
n2461.pdf.

You would be better off with n1336.pdf, which is the C99 standard
plus all revisions and corrections made to it since issue, and
published in Aug 2008. n2461 is something new, under
consideration. You can also get N869 in text form, which is the
last C99 draft published in text form. You can find a useful
version at:

<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/n869_txt.bz2>

which is a bzip2 compressed version, and fairly compact.

n1336.pdf is not a draft of the C99 standard, it's an early draft of
the C201X standard. It includes proposed changes that have not, and
will not be, incorporated into C99. Most of the changes, relative to
n1256, are re-wording of the rules for sequence points.

If you want the latest draft of the C99 standard, grab
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf>, which
includes the official C99 standard plus changes from the three
Technical Corrigenda.

It may well be true that the OP will be better off with n1256.pdf or
n1336.pdf than with n2461, but it's not likely. n2461 is a working
draft of the C++ standard, which the OP off-topically asked about (and
was already redirected to comp.lang.c++).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[James Kuyper]

CBFalconer wrote:

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
... snip ...

>I'd personally recommend finding a copy of n2461.pdf.
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2461.pdf>

Note: I've since learned that the latest draft of the C++ standard is
n2723.pdf, not n2461.pdf.

....

You would be better off with n1336.pdf, which is the C99 standard

How would that help him learn C++?

The question he asked is off-topic, and I said so. But that's no
justification for answering a completely different question.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <_G**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:
....

>The question he asked is off-topic, and I said so. But that's no
justification for answering a completely different question.

That's what we do here. It is SOP amongst the regs - they see a
question that is obviously one thing, they deem it OT, then go off and
answer it as if it was on-topic. This generally boils down to one of:

1) Prototyping main()
2) (Not) casting the return value of malloc().
3) One other thing, that I can't quite remember right now.

[Richard]

ga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <_G**************@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:
...

>>The question he asked is off-topic, and I said so. But that's no
justification for answering a completely different question.

That's what we do here. It is SOP amongst the regs - they see a
question that is obviously one thing, they deem it OT, then go off and
answer it as if it was on-topic. This generally boils down to one of:

*snip*

3) One other thing, that I can't quite remember right now.

Prod Chuck isn't it? Most of the regs seem to have taken it up.

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

.... snip ...

>

>You would be better off with n1336.pdf, which is the C99 standard
plus all revisions and corrections made to it since issue, and
published in Aug 2008. ...

.... snip ...

>
n1336.pdf is not a draft of the C99 standard, it's an early draft
of the C201X standard. It includes proposed changes that have not,
and will not be, incorporated into C99. Most of the changes,
relative to n1256, are re-wording of the rules for sequence points.

Thanks. Obviously I had the wrong idea about n1336.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.