J
jacob navia
The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^In said:The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
Dan Pop said:In <[email protected]> "jacob navia"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the C programming community at large.
So what?
The current standard is C99. Period.
The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.
In said:So what?
So this is what people writing C code care about. When the importance of
portable programming penetrates your thick skull, you'll understand why.
The current standard is C99. Period.
So what?!? You're not posting to comp.std.c, are you?
The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
Sez who? The FAQ maintainer obviously thinks otherwise, as the [ISO]
tag means:
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9899:1990
(see question 11.2). [ISO]
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.
Who are you to decide what the FAQ *should* do? Start your own FAQ and
put whatever you want there. Then see if anyone else cares about it.
Your C tutorial has already been a tremendous success in c.l.c, hasn't it?
Kevin Bracey said:In message <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed) (Dan Pop) wrote: [snip]
I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness; I
think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's trying
for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster? I personally find him far more
of an irritant than the mere incompetents and general trolls like ERT. At
least they're not vindictive, unpleasant sociopaths with far too much posting
time on their hands.
*PLONK*
jacob said:The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
jacob navia said:I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard boolean
interface header <stdbool.h> !!!
E. Robert Tisdale said:The C FAQ is obsolete.
It needs to be brought up-to-date.
jacob navia said:The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)
Steve Summit said:Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.
Kevin Bracey said:I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness; I
think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's trying
for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster?
Steve said:Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.
I'm biased, of course, but I think that's a *little* strong.
When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?
jacob said:So what?
The current standard is C99. Period.
The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.
Christopher said:Personally, I'd much prefer being told that I'm wrong in the Dan Pop
manner than not know it.
E. Robert Tisdale said:There is a new standard and the C FAQ should be completely overhauled
to reflect the adoption of that new standard.
This information is now almost a decade old.
There is a new standard and the C FAQ should be completely overhauled
to reflect the adoption of that new standard.
E. Robert Tisdale said:I consult the C FAQ frequently.
...
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q9.1.htm
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q6.16.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q11.1.html
This information is now almost a decade old.
I can't find any FAQ about the restrict keyword.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.