boolean values and the FAQ

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    The section about boolean values should mention
    <stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
    (Section 9)
    jacob navia, Jul 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <cd5ihs$l8e$> "jacob navia" <> writes:

    >The section about boolean values should mention
    ><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    So is the C programming community at large.

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Jul 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    "Dan Pop" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:cd5tff$n4b$...
    > In <cd5ihs$l8e$> "jacob navia"

    <> writes:
    >
    > >The section about boolean values should mention
    > ><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > 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.
    jacob navia, Jul 15, 2004
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <cd600i$gn0$> "jacob navia" <> writes:


    >"Dan Pop" <> a écrit dans le message de
    >news:cd5tff$n4b$...
    >> In <cd5ihs$l8e$> "jacob navia"

    ><> writes:
    >>
    >> >The section about boolean values should mention
    >> ><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> So is the C programming community at large.

    >
    >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?

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
    Dan Pop, Jul 15, 2004
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    Kevin Bracey Guest

    In message <cd65f7$hrm$>
    (Dan Pop) wrote:

    > In <cd600i$gn0$> "jacob navia" <> writes:
    >
    > >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?


    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*

    --
    Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
    Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
    182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1728 727430
    Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
    Kevin Bracey, Jul 15, 2004
    #5
  6. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    "Kevin Bracey" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > In message <cd65f7$hrm$>
    > (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*


    Well I surely agree with this description :)

    I can't understand that the same people that strictly say that only
    STANDARD C is on topic in this list now say that the C99 standard is
    irrelevant. I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard
    boolean interface header <stdbool.h> !!!

    References:

    ANSI/ISO C Standard 7.15 Boolean type and values <stdbool.h>
    jacob navia, Jul 15, 2004
    #6
  7. jacob navia wrote:

    > The section about boolean values should mention
    > <stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...


    The C FAQ is obsolete.
    It needs to be brought up-to-date.
    E. Robert Tisdale, Jul 15, 2004
    #7
  8. jacob navia

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    "jacob navia" <> writes:

    > I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard boolean
    > interface header <stdbool.h> !!!


    There's nothing anybody but the FAQ maintainer can do about that.
    Take it up with Steve Summit.
    Ben Pfaff, Jul 15, 2004
    #8
  9. jacob navia

    Steve Summit Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    >> The section about boolean values should mention
    >> <stdbool.h> at least.


    Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.

    E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
    > The C FAQ is obsolete.


    I'm biased, of course, but I think that's a *little* strong.

    > It needs to be brought up-to-date.


    When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?

    Steve Summit
    Steve Summit, Jul 15, 2004
    #9
  10. "jacob navia" <> writes:
    > The section about boolean values should mention
    > <stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
    > (Section 9)


    I agree. The C FAQ was updated just recently; the latest text
    version, at <ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/s/scs/C-faq/faq.gz>, is less than
    two weeks old (the HTML version hasn't been updated yet). It does
    include material about the C99 standard; I'm a little surprised it
    doesn't mention C99's new support for boolean types.

    (Anyone who thinks the C FAQ *shouldn't* discuss C99 should probably
    take it up with Steve Summit.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <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.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 15, 2004
    #10
  11. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    "Steve Summit" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:cd6qo7$nsd$...
    > jacob navia wrote:
    > >> The section about boolean values should mention
    > >> <stdbool.h> at least.

    >
    > Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.
    >


    Thanks for your work Steve. The other issues I mention in another
    post are not very important. If you want I can contribute a lot
    of answered questions about Win32 that could replace the MSDOS
    part but that is not essential and I leave it at your choice.

    jacob
    jacob navia, Jul 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Kevin Bracey <> spoke thus:

    > 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?


    Personally, I'd much prefer being told that I'm wrong in the Dan Pop
    manner than not know it.

    --
    Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
    ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
    Christopher Benson-Manica, Jul 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Steve Summit wrote:

    > jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >>>The section about boolean values should mention
    >>><stdbool.h> at least.

    >
    > Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.
    >
    > E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
    >
    >>The C FAQ is obsolete.

    >
    > I'm biased, of course, but I think that's a *little* strong.
    >
    >>It needs to be brought up-to-date.

    >
    > When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?


    I consult the C FAQ frequently.
    I don't re-read the entire FAQ every time.
    I have probably consulted it at least once in the last week or two.

    I think Question 9.1

    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q9.1.htm

    is most relevant here.

    What is the right type to use for Boolean values in C?
    Why isn't it a standard type?
    Should I use #defines or enums for the true and false values?

    C does not provide a standard Boolean type,

    This is no longer true.

    in part because picking one involves a space/time tradeoff
    which can best be decided by the programmer.

    This isn't a valid reason for not defining a standard boolean type.

    I seem to recall that I recently consulted Question 6.16

    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q6.16.html

    How can I dynamically allocate a multidimensional array?

    Which does not mention variable dimension arrays --
    the safest and simplest solution for new users.

    I can't find any FAQ about the restrict keyword.

    Question 11.1

    http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q11.1.html

    What is the ``ANSI C Standard?''

    In addition,
    both ANSI and ISO require periodic review of their standards.
    This process is beginning in 1995,
    and will likely result in a completely revised standard
    (nicknamed ``C9X'' on the assumption of completion by 1999).

    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, Jul 15, 2004
    #13
  14. jacob navia wrote:
    > "Dan Pop" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:cd5tff$n4b$...
    >
    >>In <cd5ihs$l8e$> "jacob navia"

    >
    > <> writes:
    >
    >>>The section about boolean values should mention
    >>><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

    >>
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>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.


    So there is a later standard. BFD.
    What about all those of us who are forced to use compilers
    that are built around the C89 standard?
    Many of the companies will not uprade their compilers unless
    all of the projects require it. Most of my embedded systems
    programming has shown that the C89 standard is adequate and
    there isn't a _need_ to upgrade.

    But what about legacy projects. I got access to a whole lot
    of code that uses #define BOOL, #define TRUE, #define FALSE,
    and similar. We are not going to change all that old code
    to upgrade it to a standard. Simply because customers will
    not pay more for their product than they need to. The money
    for upgrading code has to come from somewhere.



    --
    Thomas Matthews

    C++ newsgroup welcome message:
    http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
    C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite
    C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
    http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c /faq.html
    Other sites:
    http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
    http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library
    Thomas Matthews, Jul 15, 2004
    #14
  15. jacob navia

    Default User Guest

    Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
    >
    > Kevin Bracey <> spoke thus:
    >
    > > 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?

    >
    > Personally, I'd much prefer being told that I'm wrong in the Dan Pop
    > manner than not know it.



    But then again, I'd rather be told I'm wrong in the Chris Torek manner
    than the Dan Pop manner.



    Brian Rodenborn
    Default User, Jul 15, 2004
    #15
  16. "E. Robert Tisdale" <> writes:
    [...]
    > There is a new standard and the C FAQ should be completely overhauled
    > to reflect the adoption of that new standard.


    This is being addressed; see the "Other issues with the FAQ" thread.
    (I don't agree that a complete overhaul is in order; the FAQ still
    needs to be useful to the many programmers who don't have reliable
    access to C99 compilers.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <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.
    Keith Thompson, Jul 16, 2004
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    Mike Wahler Guest

    "E. Robert Tisdale" <> wrote in message
    news:cd6tps$e2g$...

    [S. Summit's C FAQ]

    > 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.


    Here's a key point, I think. AFAIK, not many yet have really
    'adopted' C99. Many still write to the C89 standard. I do
    agree that it would be good to add C99 stuff to the FAQ, but
    I also think C89 info should remain (and both should be clearly
    distinguished from one another where the information differs.)

    -Mike
    Mike Wahler, Jul 16, 2004
    #17
  18. jacob navia

    Steve Summit Guest

    E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
    >Steve Summit wrote:
    >> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
    >>> The C FAQ is obsolete.
    >>> It needs to be brought up-to-date.

    >>
    >> When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?

    >
    > 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 am the first to admit that the HTML version is badly out of date.
    But that's not what I asked.
    When's the last time you looked at the version posted to comp.lang.c?

    > I can't find any FAQ about the restrict keyword.


    That's because there are no Frequently Asked Questions about
    the restrict keyword. (But you're right, I should mention it
    in question 11.28, the old `noalias' question. Thanks.)

    Steve Summit
    Steve Summit, Jul 16, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. vighnesh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,026
    Paul Clement
    Aug 4, 2005
  2. J Leonard
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    12,667
    Mark Space
    Jan 19, 2008
  3. vighnesh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    181
    Paul Clement
    Aug 4, 2005
  4. Daniel Berger

    WMI and boolean values from Win32_Processor

    Daniel Berger, Jun 20, 2004, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    375
    Daniel Berger
    Jun 22, 2004
  5. Metre Meter
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    363
    Metre Meter
    Aug 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page