Richard said:
CBFalconer said:
But most people don't program in C99. Quoting from a document that doesn't
actually describe the language being used seems like a very strange
definition of "best available".
First of all, keep in mind that "best" isn't necessarily "good". The
best available way of dealing with spam, for instance, isn't a good way
of dealing with it, it's just better than the other ways.
But more directly to the point, the C99 standard does describe the C90
language - with only a relatively few errors. If you keep in ming the
summary of the changes from C90 in paragraph 5 of the Foreword, and
avoid discussing issues related to those changes, you're not going to
make many significant errors using the C99 standard to inform
discussions about C90.
It would be better to make no errors, certainly - but is that difference
important enough to justify paying for a legitimate copy of the C90
standard? I don't know about you, but I certainly have better uses for
my money.