Who's seen the standard? 
Author Message
 Who's seen the standard?

I'm curious about how many people have actually seen the standard?  Is it
likely to be in a university library or in a bookstore?  Have some of you
actually purchased a copy or do you work for a company that has purchased a
copy?  I see a lot of references to what is legal, but I have never had the
opportunity to read any part of the standard for myself.  Obviously, many
authors of recent "Hang Yourself with C in 5 Minutes" books haven't read it
either.

I have managed to see the fortran 90 standard.  Does that count for
anything. :-P

--
Increase the Peace!
Charles LaCour



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:

>I'm curious about how many people have actually seen the standard?

Judging by the number of people who quote from it, quite a lot.

Quote:
>Is it
>likely to be in a university library or in a bookstore?

Try "The Annotated ANSI C Standard", ISBN 0-07-881952-0.  The annotations
are by Herbert Schildt, but don't worry!  They're printed separately from
the text of the standard so it's nice and easy to ignore them.

--
Richard Stamp, Cambridge, UK



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:

> I'm curious about how many people have actually seen the standard?
> Is it likely to be in a university library or in a bookstore?
> Have some of you actually purchased a copy or do you work for
> a company that has purchased a copy?  I see a lot of references
> to what is legal, but I have never had the opportunity to read
> any part of the standard for myself...

Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was
not available at a retail price that attracted many casual readers.

Fow whatever reason, the text of the current C Standard is not
available online.  However, the draft text of the proposed next
C Standard is available online.  I do not know if the final version
of the "C9X" Standard will be available online.

 - Larry Weiss



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?
In article

Quote:

> Fow whatever reason, the text of the current C Standard is not
> available online.

The claim is that a significant portion of the funding for standards bodies
comes from selling printed copies of standards.  I am not in a position to
comment on the validity of this position.

Quote:
> However, the draft text of the proposed next C Standard is available
> online.

But is sufficiently different that it should not be consulted for
information on what is currently standard C, unless you already know ISO
9899:1990 very well to begin with.

Quote:
> I do not know if the final version of the "C9X" Standard will be available
> online.

Unlikely at the present time, though AFAIK, there is some interest in, for
example, making standards available on CD-ROM at a reasonable charge.

--



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?


[snip]
Quote:
> Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was

Careful, I've seen mistakes in there.
[snip]

--
<<<<<<<<<<  Blue Skies  >>>>>>>>>>>
<        Michael J. Tobler        >

< remove "no-spam-" when replying >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?



   [snip]
   > Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was
   Careful, I've seen mistakes in there.

I only know of two mistakes: a missing period on one page, and another
page that's missing.

Of course, Schildt's ``annotations'' are a mistake, period.
--
(supporter of the campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due in c.l.c)

Please: do not email me copies of your posts to comp.lang.c
        do not ask me C questions via email; post them instead



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:


> > Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was
> Careful, I've seen mistakes in there...

Typographical problems with the version of the C Standard in
Schildt's book include:

 o The introduction is missing.
 o Page 26 is missing the second "." in the section that should
    have been:

     fractional-constant:
        digit-sequence     . digit-sequence
                      opt
        digit-sequence .

 o Page 132 is missing and is replaced by an extra copy of page 131.
     See Clive Feather's page    
      http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt-132.html
     for a summary of the missing information.

 o As Kaz Kylheku has pointed out in past posts there have been
    two technical corrigenda published.  These are discussed
    at URLs:
       http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/tc1.html
       http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/tc2.html

BTW, FWWIW, Clive's page at http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
contains a critique of Schildt's right-hand-side page annotations.
I just leave those pages unread.

 - Larry Weiss



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:
>[snip]
>> Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was
>Careful, I've seen mistakes in there.
>[snip]

Now, that's what I call an UNDERSTATEMENT!

A list can be found at http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html - I was
appalled first time I saw it!

--
"I see you have books under your arm, brother. It is indeed a rare pleasure
these days to come across somebody that still reads, brother."

        - Anthony Burgess



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?
In article <F7FC41412C7C0E18.E8052BC4116F8D5B.2EA

Quote:


>> > Until the Schildt book came out, the text of the C Standard was
>> Careful, I've seen mistakes in there...

>Typographical problems with the version of the C Standard in
>Schildt's book include:

This list looks comprehensive. My copy came with the correct version of page
132 pasted in.

Quote:
> o The introduction is missing.

A nuisance but not a big disaster.

Quote:
> o Page 26 is missing the second "." in the section that should
>    have been:

>     fractional-constant:
>        digit-sequence     . digit-sequence
>                      opt
>        digit-sequence .

Easily corrected.

Quote:
> o Page 132 is missing and is replaced by an extra copy of page 131.
>     See Clive Feather's page    
>      http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt-132.html
>     for a summary of the missing information.

It is a nuisance if you don't have it since that is an important page for
the *printf functions. Still it can be fixed.

Quote:
> o As Kaz Kylheku has pointed out in past posts there have been
>    two technical corrigenda published.  These are discussed
>    at URLs:
>       http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/tc1.html
>       http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/tc2.html

And you can get copies of these.

Quote:
>BTW, FWWIW, Clive's page at http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html
>contains a critique of Schildt's right-hand-side page annotations.
>I just leave those pages unread.

As long as you are aware of that the book is a good buy. You have to give
Schildt credit, by persuading ISO to let it be published he did the C
community a good service.

--
-----------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:

> As long as you are aware of that the book is a good buy.
> You have to give Schildt credit, by persuading ISO to let
> it be published he did the C community a good service.

We spoke here in c.l.c on this topic about two years ago and
I asked then if anyone else had requested permission of ISO
to publish the text of the Standard.   No one ever replied that
they had done so.   Maybe all Schildt (or Osborne McGraw-Hill) had
to do was ask.  

But I do give Schildt very good marks on the concept of his
project.  I know I benefitted from it.  I saw a large stack
of this book at a computer retailer in the discontinued aisle
recently going for $4 (US) apiece.  They sold them fairly quickly.
Maybe this was the printing before page 132 was repaired.

Looking at the future, I'm happy to get the C9X drafts online,
but there is also a need for a reasonably priced printed publication.
I wonder if Schildt is already at work on an "Annotated C9X" ?

 - Larry Weiss



Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?
:>Is it
:>likely to be in a university library or in a bookstore?
:
:Try "The Annotated ANSI C Standard", ISBN 0-07-881952-0.  The annotations
:are by Herbert Schildt, but don't worry!  They're printed separately from
:the text of the standard so it's nice and easy to ignore them.

Someone recommended me a C book by that Schildt once. I believe it was from 93 or something. I'm not much of a professional, but
that book kinda suced. I swear there were certain errors, just too stupid to be true.



Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:

> :>Is it
> :>likely to be in a university library or in a bookstore?
> :
> :Try "The Annotated ANSI C Standard", ISBN 0-07-881952-0.  The annotations
> :are by Herbert Schildt, but don't worry!  They're printed separately from
> :the text of the standard so it's nice and easy to ignore them.

> Someone recommended me a C book by that Schildt once. I believe it was from 93 or something. I'm not much of a professional, but
> that book kinda suced. I swear there were certain errors, just too stupid to be true.

<Jack>

The recommendation of most of the regular contributors in this group is that
all Schildt books are bad EXCEPT for the annotated standard, mentioned above
by Richard.  The left hand pages of this book contain the actual standard with
only a few typesetting errors.  The right hand pages contain Schildt's
annotations, many of which are flat out wrong and directly contradict what is
on the facing left hand page.  This is why everyone mentions that you should
just ignore the right hand pages.

</Jack>



Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?


[snip]
Quote:
> The recommendation of most of the regular contributors in this group is that
> all Schildt books are bad EXCEPT for the annotated standard, mentioned above
> by Richard.  The left hand pages of this book contain the actual standard with
> only a few typesetting errors.  The right hand pages contain Schildt's
> annotations, many of which are flat out wrong and directly contradict what is
> on the facing left hand page.  This is why everyone mentions that you should
> just ignore the right hand pages.

You say, "...bad EXCEPT for...". Then you say, "...many of which are flat
our wrong...".

Here's my opinion: How would a person (unfamiliar with *some* of the
standard) know that the "left-hand stuff" is okay, when the "right-hand
stuff" is wrong?  I would question the entire book if the right hand stuff
is consistently incorrect.

I haven't read any of his books, but I *always* read bad reviews about
them. IMHO, I'd avoid all his books based on the consistently bad reviews.

--
<<<<<<<<<<  Blue Skies  >>>>>>>>>>>
<        Michael J. Tobler        >

< remove "no-spam-" when replying >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?


[snip]
Quote:
> I wonder if Schildt is already at work on an "Annotated C9X" ?

>  - Larry Weiss

Why wait for "him" to do it? (hint).

--
<<<<<<<<<<  Blue Skies  >>>>>>>>>>>
<        Michael J. Tobler        >

< remove "no-spam-" when replying >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 Who's seen the standard?

Quote:

>Here's my opinion: How would a person (unfamiliar with *some* of the
>standard) know that the "left-hand stuff" is okay, when the "right-hand
>stuff" is wrong?  I would question the entire book if the right hand
>stuff is consistently incorrect.

By reading a thread such as this one, of course.  I wouldn't recommend the
book without adding the appropriate warning, but once you've been warned
there's no problem.  If you've seen the book you'll realise that there is
absolutely no risk of confusing the annotations with the standard itself
(the typography is completely different, for one thing).

Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Stamp, Cambridge, UK



Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Protype form I hav'nt seen before

2. making #define's to be seen across files

3. why my Control methods can't be seen by outside

4. Seeing pre=processor's work

5. The most frustrating windows bug i've seen

6. Start a command without seeing the console and get the exe's return code

7. Connection Manager sees GPS but can't find on any of the COM ports

8. Announce: `` v '', the Non Standard C Library (version 0.2)

9. Annonce: `` v '', the Non Standard C Library (version 0.0)

10. programming standards for 'C'

11. Is there a standard for ``alwaysAssert()?''

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software