Need suggestions for C links.

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Guest, Feb 26, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    List,

    I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
    Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
    bit of specialized extensions.

    I've plenty of Standards for my industry--a subset of embedded systems
    work, but I need more good, "Standard, no extensions" links, as
    increasingly in the embedded world standards dictate just that.

    I already have:

    --The c.l.c FAQ
    --The c.l.c IFAQ
    --http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/ From what I've seen so far, this is a good
    Standard reference, though I've not read it exhaustively.

    I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
    "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
    embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
    strange to me....

    Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
    Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
    along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
    right.

    The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
    precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
    whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
    general dislike of coding HTML...

    Aside from those two items, I'm after anything that can help a herd of
    cats . .er . . . variety of C programmers from different backgrounds get
    on the "Standard" page.

    Thanx
     
    Guest, Feb 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> writes:
    > I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    > professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
    > Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
    > bit of specialized extensions.

    [...]
    > I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
    > "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
    > embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
    > strange to me....
    >
    > Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
    > Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
    > along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
    > right.
    >
    > The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
    > precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
    > whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
    > general dislike of coding HTML...

    [...]

    How about the standard itself?

    You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.

    That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    still available.

    --
    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, Feb 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Jordan Abel Guest

    On 2006-02-26, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > <> writes:
    >> I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    >> professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
    >> Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
    >> bit of specialized extensions.

    > [...]
    >> I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
    >> "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
    >> embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
    >> strange to me....
    >>
    >> Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
    >> Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
    >> along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
    >> right.
    >>
    >> The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
    >> precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
    >> whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
    >> general dislike of coding HTML...

    > [...]
    >
    > How about the standard itself?
    >
    > You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    > FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    > which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >
    > That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    > C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    > still available.


    The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.
     
    Jordan Abel, Feb 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Jordan Abel <> writes:
    > On 2006-02-26, Keith Thompson <> wrote:

    [...]
    >> How about the standard itself?
    >>
    >> You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    >> FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    >> which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >>
    >> That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    >> C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    >> still available.

    >
    > The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.


    True, but you can infer operator precedence from the grammar, and even
    (I think) from the order of the subsections of section 6.5,
    "Expressions".

    --
    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, Feb 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    MrG{DRGN} Guest

    "Keith Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    -snip
    >
    > How about the standard itself?
    >
    > You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    > FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    > which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >
    > That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    > C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    > still available.
    >


    Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
    my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

    --
    MrG{DRGN}
     
    MrG{DRGN}, Feb 26, 2006
    #5
  6. MrG{DRGN} said:

    > Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
    > my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    > navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.


    It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    portable document format.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Feb 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    > writes
    ><> writes:
    >> I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    >> professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient reference to
    >> Standard C, particularly for those who come from backgrounds with a good
    >> bit of specialized extensions.

    >[...]
    >> I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone reading
    >> "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds coming into the
    >> embedded world. Window? What's a window? Text? Those words are
    >> strange to me....
    >>
    >> Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
    >> Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in debugging,
    >> along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to get the details
    >> right.
    >>
    >> The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
    >> precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite certain
    >> whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table, apart from a
    >> general dislike of coding HTML...

    >[...]
    >
    >How about the standard itself?
    >
    >You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    >FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    >which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >
    >That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    >C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    >still available.


    It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <08cMf.32338$>, MrG{DRGN}
    <> writes
    >
    >"Keith Thompson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >-snip
    >>
    >> How about the standard itself?
    >>
    >> You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    >> FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    >> which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >>
    >> That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    >> C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is
    >> still available.
    >>

    >
    >Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
    >my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
    >


    As you can put links into PDF files that behave as links in html files.

    I this context html is the same as PDF except you can't protect an html
    file the same as a PDF.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <dtrjp2$67c$-infra.bt.com>, Richard
    Heathfield <> writes
    >MrG{DRGN} said:
    >
    >> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just be
    >> my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

    >
    >It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    >portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    >portable document format.


    IT is as portable and anything else. Probably more so.
    HTML has all sorts of extensions.

    Why is PDF not portable?

    If it is not portable why is it universally used for documents that need
    to be portable?

    There is no way I would ship a document in html. For a start it is
    editable.
    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    CBFalconer Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    > professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient
    > reference to Standard C, particularly for those who come from
    > backgrounds with a good bit of specialized extensions.
    >
    > I've plenty of Standards for my industry--a subset of embedded
    > systems work, but I need more good, "Standard, no extensions"
    > links, as increasingly in the embedded world standards dictate
    > just that.
    >
    > I already have:
    >
    > --The c.l.c FAQ
    > --The c.l.c IFAQ
    > --http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/ From what I've seen so far, this
    > is a good Standard reference, though I've not read it
    > exhaustively.
    >
    > I don't need "How to Program" nor "C Tutorial" links. Everyone
    > reading "knows C", but there's a wide variety of backgrounds
    > coming into the embedded world. Window? What's a window?
    > Text? Those words are strange to me....
    >
    > Two things I need are an authoritative printf()-family reference.
    > Though it's often banned in production code, it's common in
    > debugging, along with "No Warnings Allowed", so it's important to
    > get the details right.
    >
    > The other thing I consider a "Need" is an authoritative operator
    > precedence chart. There are a number around, and I'm not quite
    > certain whether any is better than copying K&Rs to a web table,
    > apart from a general dislike of coding HTML...
    >
    > Aside from those two items, I'm after anything that can help a
    > herd of cats . .er . . . variety of C programmers from different
    > backgrounds get on the "Standard" page.


    See the links in my sig. As far as precedence is concerned, the
    standard does not spell out precedence, just BNF for parsing. The
    best advice is not to assume any precedence whatsoever beyond
    (multiplicative > additive > logical), but to use explicit
    parentheses. This way both the writer and the reader will be sure
    what is intended.

    For my own benefit I maintain a copy of n869.txt with pagination
    removed. This is suitable both for quoting and for rapid search
    with text tools. A search for "functioname(" will usually yield an
    immediate description of any standard function. A not found
    immediately shows that such a function is non-standard (with one
    exception). More detailed library discussion can be found on the
    dinkumware page below.

    --
    Some useful references about C:
    <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
    <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    <http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
    <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
    <http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
    <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
    <http://clc-wiki.net> (C-info)
     
    CBFalconer, Feb 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Chris Hills said:

    > In article <dtrjp2$67c$-infra.bt.com>, Richard
    > Heathfield <> writes
    >>MrG{DRGN} said:
    >>
    >>> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
    >>> be my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >>> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

    >>
    >>It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    >>portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    >>portable document format.

    >
    > IT is as portable and anything else. Probably more so.
    > HTML has all sorts of extensions.


    So does C. That doesn't mean C isn't portable. And HTML is editable in any
    text editor.

    >
    > Why is PDF not portable?


    Here's an extract from my copy of C99:

    ÁP;£^]~[ó$~Cj˽pk§y|
    !ë^AElzõü«Ôî`I0Ï(~I~]öX~HLÖ^BrW&^O^M.~\±[/À¨òñm)sôg~L^F~H~CÀj^Vu0sO(³¬~^-ÀÝ|
    &£~A~NJÞ~[é½Ð\øð}òÈmÙ"é~Yu@W2iPÎÙ«³Ùq¥^EDï-+\ä~H4ÊãÏw^KÖÁãíÃ^];Î~Dìå~R4`^@0oÊ00~H^Bo~IÅÏ~Bàg^^Böd¦^O8^Cìô^A^BJô;~WÐ沨°^HAä~I~Oß^D¼^_øYÞ^U/©ÈlHÚ~NÅ)^Vt^E~G¨Å^GN=§¡yÄ+C~RJ¾^]~BQ"f~FE*j*ëg^CÍM0zÏÝ:9tå^ZøþàÕµ£i¹k÷Ð˹n<:Áy8¡~I^CSKåWJÐ×~^~Rô^[Å(~D~Y~W9~L­
    aóM~[^E¹^G³Cõ5~Z¡^Ç®X¹^MA~Q^C~T\õRC^UÔN²E¼ÒsßxÆÁÓDLÔ

    Nice. Can you read that? I can't. I can't even pronounce it.

    > If it is not portable why is it universally used for documents that need
    > to be portable?


    It isn't. Whenever I need a document to be portable, I use plain text.
    Therefore I am a counter-example, and therefore PDF is not a
    universally-used format.

    > There is no way I would ship a document in html. For a start it is
    > editable.


    There is no way I would ship a document in PDF. For a start it is not easily
    editable.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Feb 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    MrG{DRGN} Guest

    "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    news:dtrjp2$67c$-infra.bt.com...
    > MrG{DRGN} said:
    >
    >> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
    >> be
    >> my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

    >
    > It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    > portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    > portable document format.
    >


    I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. If
    your're being serious fine. If you're being sarcastic I don't see the need
    for it. I had no idea what the acronym PDF represented, and if html is not
    as portable as PDF then I understand its use. I'm certainly not so naive as
    to think windows is the only operating system in the world. I suppose I
    should have simply kept my mouth shut rather than ask an exasperated
    question about something I didn't understand. I mainly use windows, but I
    have used Linux in the past, and I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
    as opposed to. html. I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
    cater to my desires, only express confusion and/or frustration with the
    choice of format. A lack of knowledge on my part is not an excuse for you to
    be sarcastic towards me. Given this I could have posed my question a little
    less emotionally, and if this message reads like I'm yelling at you, rest
    assured that I'm not.

    Thanks

    --
    MrG{DRGN}
     
    MrG{DRGN}, Feb 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    Default User Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:

    > <> writes:
    > > I'm looking for C links for Standard C for a website targeting
    > > professional SW engineers. Intent is to have a convenient
    > > reference to Standard C, particularly for those who come from
    > > backgrounds with a good bit of specialized extensions.


    > How about the standard itself?
    >
    > You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the
    > FAQ has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it),
    > which incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.


    Not for a website though, that $18 one is for personal use. You'd need
    a site license. That's what my company did for a copy of the C++
    standard on our internal web pages.



    Brian
     
    Default User, Feb 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    CBFalconer Guest

    Chris Hills wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > As you can put links into PDF files that behave as links in html files.
    >
    > I this context html is the same as PDF except you can't protect an html
    > file the same as a PDF.


    Certainly you can. You just don't publish it. The sole advantage
    of PDF over HTML is that it can fairly easily embody diagrams. It
    has a major disadvantage in that it will not adapt to the viewers
    convenience. HTML has the major advantage that it is fundamentally
    text, and thus is viewable, searchable, editable, and useful.

    --
    Some similarities between GWB and Mussolini:
    a) The strut; b) Making war until brought up short:
    Mussolini: Ethiopia, France, Greece.
    GWB: Afghanistan, Iraq.
     
    CBFalconer, Feb 26, 2006
    #14
  15. CBFalconer <> writes:
    [...]
    > See the links in my sig. As far as precedence is concerned, the
    > standard does not spell out precedence, just BNF for parsing. The
    > best advice is not to assume any precedence whatsoever beyond
    > (multiplicative > additive > logical), but to use explicit
    > parentheses. This way both the writer and the reader will be sure
    > what is intended.

    [...]

    Good advice, but I'd say at least (unary > multiplicative > additive >
    logical > assignment).

    --
    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, Feb 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    pete Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    >
    > Jordan Abel <> writes:


    > > The standard does not contain an operator precedence table.

    >
    > True, but you can infer operator precedence from the grammar, and even
    > (I think) from the order of the subsections of section 6.5,
    > "Expressions".


    So they say, but I use page 53.

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Feb 26, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    Netocrat Guest

    On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:48:36 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:
    > In article <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    > > writes

    [...]
    >>You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
    >>has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
    >>incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >>
    >>That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    >>C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
    >>available.

    >
    > It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.


    It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
    in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
    <http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.

    I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
    not, their websites are out of date.

    --
    http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat
     
    Netocrat, Feb 26, 2006
    #17
  18. MrG{DRGN} said:

    >
    > "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    > news:dtrjp2$67c$-infra.bt.com...
    >> MrG{DRGN} said:
    >>
    >>> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
    >>> be
    >>> my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >>> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

    >>
    >> It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    >> portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    >> portable document format.
    >>

    >
    > I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.


    Yes. Possibly both.

    > I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
    > as opposed to. html.


    Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.

    > I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
    > cater to my desires,


    I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?

    > A lack of knowledge on my part is not an excuse for you
    > to be sarcastic towards me.


    I agree - but I wasn't gunning for you. Sorry if you got caught in the
    crossfire. ;-)

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
    http://www.cpax.org.uk
    email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
     
    Richard Heathfield, Feb 26, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <dtsf2o$t06$-infra.bt.com>, Richard
    Heathfield <> writes
    >MrG{DRGN} said:
    >
    >>
    >> "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    >> news:dtrjp2$67c$-infra.bt.com...
    >>> MrG{DRGN} said:
    >>>
    >>>> Why did they decide to use a *expletive deleted* PDF file? It may just
    >>>> be
    >>>> my opinion, but I think that html file(s) would be much more easily
    >>>> navigated. I suppose I could wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
    >>>
    >>> It's because the ISO guys never really understood the concept of
    >>> portability. They think the name "Portable Document Format" indicates a
    >>> portable document format.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I'm sorry Richard, I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.

    >
    >Yes. Possibly both.
    >
    >> I find navigating PDF files an annoyance
    >> as opposed to. html.

    >
    >Likewise. For a start, it means I can't grep the darn thing.


    PDF readers have search facilities built in.

    >
    >> I wasn't trying to imply that the "ISO guys" should
    >> cater to my desires,

    >
    >I don't see why not. What's so hard about producing an HTML version?


    Nothing but how do you lock it down? password protect it? embed serial
    numbers?

    HTML is editable and PDF is not which is a major advantage if you are
    distributing documents like standards and data sheets.



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 26, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    Chris Hills Guest

    In article <>, Netocrat
    <> writes
    >On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:48:36 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:
    >> In article <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    >> > writes

    >[...]
    >>>You can get a PDF copy of the C standard for about $18 (I think the FAQ
    >>>has links). Or you can get a free copy of n1124.pdf (Google it), which
    >>>incorporates the entire C99 standard plus TC1 and TC1.
    >>>
    >>>That's assuming you want C99. I think you can also find drafts of the
    >>>C89/C90 standard; I'm not certain that the C90 standard itself is still
    >>>available.

    >>
    >> It is but only in hard copy at around 30 GAP or 50 US.

    >
    >It's also listed for soft copy purchase as a foreign-ratified Standard
    >in a few places, some collected on the wiki at:
    ><http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Basics_Of_The_C_Standard#Obtaining_the_Standard>.
    >
    >I don't know whether any of those sources are actually "in stock", but if
    >not, their websites are out of date.
    >


    I stock the hard copy version

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    /\/\/ www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris Hills, Feb 26, 2006
    #20
    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. VB Programmer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    816
    CuteSoft
    Dec 29, 2004
  2. Cirene
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,605
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Nov 16, 2004
  3. www.westerncartooncards.ca

    Exchange Links < Western Cartoon Cards > Exchange Links

    www.westerncartooncards.ca, Jul 12, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,287
    Toby Inkster
    Jul 12, 2004
  4. Corn Flakes

    Suggestions needed for list of links

    Corn Flakes, Aug 12, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,130
    Bergamot
    Aug 16, 2007
  5. Garrett Smith
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    338
    David Mark
    May 26, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page