[OT?] C++ Standard - 14882:2003

Discussion in 'C++' started by Sumit Rajan, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Sumit Rajan

    Sumit Rajan Guest

    On searching ANSI's webstore (using 14882 as the keyword), I came across two
    results: INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 for $18 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003 for $273.
    Their file sizes seem identical. Are they the same in content also? Is the
    $18 document - the INCITS one - substantially different from 14882:1998
    which was previously available at this website?

    Thanks.
    Sumit.
     
    Sumit Rajan, Jan 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sumit Rajan wrote:
    > On searching ANSI's webstore (using 14882 as the keyword), I came across two
    > results: INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 for $18 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003 for $273.
    > Their file sizes seem identical. Are they the same in content also? Is the
    > $18 document - the INCITS one - substantially different from 14882:1998
    > which was previously available at this website?
    >
    > Thanks.
    > Sumit.
    >
    >


    The electronic copy is $18, the hardcopy is $273. There's nothing wrong
    with the cheap version (it's what I have; there's nothing missing).

    Jacques.
     
    Jacques Labuschagne, Jan 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sumit Rajan

    Sumit Rajan Guest

    "Jacques Labuschagne" <> wrote in message
    news:eOQJb.15697$...
    >
    > The electronic copy is $18, the hardcopy is $273. There's nothing wrong
    > with the cheap version (it's what I have; there's nothing missing).
    >
    > Jacques.


    Thanks for responding,

    The $273 version also seems to be an electronic version - it says that the
    file size is 2.35 MB. Or do they mean that you get an electronic copy along
    with you hardcopy?

    Regards,
    Sumit.
     
    Sumit Rajan, Jan 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Sumit Rajan wrote:
    > The $273 version also seems to be an electronic version - it says that the
    > file size is 2.35 MB. Or do they mean that you get an electronic copy along
    > with you hardcopy?


    I assume you get an electronic copy free with the hardcopy. I just
    bought the electronic copy and printed it out (on the departmental
    printer, naturally). :)

    Jacques.
     
    Jacques Labuschagne, Jan 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Sumit Rajan

    Sumit Rajan Guest

    "Jacques Labuschagne" <> wrote in message
    news:7kSJb.15720$...

    > I assume you get an electronic copy free with the hardcopy. I just
    > bought the electronic copy and printed it out (on the departmental
    > printer, naturally). :)
    >


    Clever! :)

    Do you have any idea as to whether there is a significant difference between
    14882:1998 and 14882:2003?

    Regards,
    Sumit.
     
    Sumit Rajan, Jan 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Andrew Koenig, Jan 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Sumit Rajan

    Ron Natalie Guest

    "Sumit Rajan" <> wrote in message news:bt8k9u$41mo5$-berlin.de...
    > On searching ANSI's webstore (using 14882 as the keyword), I came across two
    > results: INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 for $18 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003 for $273.
    > Their file sizes seem identical. Are they the same in content also? Is the
    > $18 document - the INCITS one - substantially different from 14882:1998
    > which was previously available at this website?


    Yes, it's some quirk in the way ANSI and ISO interact. They used to have two prices
    for the electronic 14882-1999 as well. When the 2003 (TC1 updates) was published
    it seems that only the expensive version made the store. Nobody has indicated when
    and if an "ANSI" cheap version will become available. Printed copies from J Wiley
    in the UK are available at the normal text book prices (~$80).
     
    Ron Natalie, Jan 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Sumit Rajan

    Ron Natalie Guest

    "Ron Natalie" <> wrote in message news:3ff838fb$0$32356$...
    >
    > "Sumit Rajan" <> wrote in message news:bt8k9u$41mo5$-berlin.de...
    > > On searching ANSI's webstore (using 14882 as the keyword), I came across two
    > > results: INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 for $18 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003 for $273.
    > > Their file sizes seem identical. Are they the same in content also? Is the
    > > $18 document - the INCITS one - substantially different from 14882:1998
    > > which was previously available at this website?

    >
    > Yes, it's some quirk in the way ANSI and ISO interact. They used to have two prices
    > for the electronic 14882-1999 as well. When the 2003 (TC1 updates) was published
    > it seems that only the expensive version made the store. Nobody has indicated when
    > and if an "ANSI" cheap version will become available. Printed copies from J Wiley
    > in the UK are available at the normal text book prices (~$80).
    >

    OK, I see, they have put out the 18$ version of the 2003.

    By the way, ANSI SCREWS AGAIN! Thie 2003 version is missing the TABLE OF CONTENTS
    in the book marks section that both the 1998 C++ and 1999 C standards have (and the section numbers
    in the rest of the document are still not links as they were in the drafts).
     
    Ron Natalie, Jan 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Sumit Rajan

    CrayzeeWulf Guest

    Ron Natalie wrote:
    >
    > By the way, ANSI SCREWS AGAIN! Thie 2003 version is missing the TABLE OF
    > CONTENTS in the book marks section that both the 1998 C++ and 1999 C
    > standards have (and the section numbers in the rest of the document are
    > still not links as they were in the drafts).
    >

    Yeah. That really sucks. The PDF file does not contain bookmarks or links;
    this makes it very hard to navigate through the document. Is this really
    ANSI's fault ?

    --
    CrayzeeWulf
     
    CrayzeeWulf, Jan 4, 2004
    #9
  10. > By the way, ANSI SCREWS AGAIN! Thie 2003 version is missing the TABLE OF
    CONTENTS
    > in the book marks section that both the 1998 C++ and 1999 C standards have

    (and the section numbers
    > in the rest of the document are still not links as they were in the

    drafts).

    The version of the standard that I sent to ISO had bookmarks and a table of
    contents, so if the official version is missing those, someone else must
    have removed them.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Sumit Rajan

    Ron Natalie Guest

    "Andrew Koenig" <> wrote in message news:dBXJb.279443$...
    > > By the way, ANSI SCREWS AGAIN! Thie 2003 version is missing the TABLE OF

    > CONTENTS
    > > in the book marks section that both the 1998 C++ and 1999 C standards have

    > (and the section numbers
    > > in the rest of the document are still not links as they were in the

    > drafts).
    >
    > The version of the standard that I sent to ISO had bookmarks and a table of
    > contents, so if the official version is missing those, someone else must
    > have removed them.
    >

    Probably lost when they hacked the thing into burning in the purchaser's name.
     
    Ron Natalie, Jan 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Sumit Rajan

    CrayzeeWulf Guest

    Andrew Koenig wrote:

    >
    > The version of the standard that I sent to ISO had bookmarks and a table
    > of contents, so if the official version is missing those, someone else
    > must have removed them.
    >

    Is there any way to convince them fix the bookmarks and table of contents
    back to the file you submitted ? I have sent them an email and will call
    them on Monday. However, my pleas might be insignificant.

    Thanks,
    --
    CrayzeeWulf
     
    CrayzeeWulf, Jan 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Sumit Rajan

    Ron Natalie Guest

    "CrayzeeWulf" <> wrote in message news:hZYJb.40047$...
    > Andrew Koenig wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > The version of the standard that I sent to ISO had bookmarks and a table
    > > of contents, so if the official version is missing those, someone else
    > > must have removed them.
    > >

    > Is there any way to convince them fix the bookmarks and table of contents
    > back to the file you submitted ? I have sent them an email and will call
    > them on Monday. However, my pleas might be insignificant.
    >

    Well when the 1999 came out it was locked against text selection (and
    cut and paste). There was much bitching and they fixed that. Since
    I was a primary bitcher, they actually sent me the fixed version (although
    they claimed they weren't going to do that for everybody).

    Hey, Andy is the original document still troff (with tbl & pic), or did we go
    to more sophisticated word processing in the intervening years?
     
    Ron Natalie, Jan 4, 2004
    #13
  14. > Hey, Andy is the original document still troff (with tbl & pic), or did we
    go
    > to more sophisticated word processing in the intervening years?


    It's still troff. It would be nice for the next standard to use something
    more modern, but it's not obvious what it should be, and a lot of work to
    convert it.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Sumit Rajan

    John Brown Guest

    > The version of the standard that I sent to ISO had bookmarks and a table
    of
    > contents, so if the official version is missing those, someone else must
    > have removed them.


    Do you know why links were never implemented however, notwithstanding the
    time required to facilitate this (in the index especially). The document is
    extremely difficult to navigate. Even the page numbers in the index are
    inaccurate from the perspective of someone trying to use "Go To Page" in
    Acrobat Reader (you need to mentally add 26 to the page number seen in the
    index). I was also told by another committee member sometime ago (his name
    escapes me off-hand) that members even have an HTML version but the ISO
    itself is responsible for its release as a ".pdf" file. The document may be
    just an electronic copy of the final standard but I suspect many developers
    (myself included) frequently reference it. Proper page numbers, links, and
    the ability to move back and forth to previously visited pages like in one's
    favorite (HTML) browser would be a welcome relief. I could contact the ISO
    if they're ultimately responsible but I seriously doubt it would go
    anywhere. An official source would carry much more weight. Your comments?
    Thanks.
     
    John Brown, Jan 5, 2004
    #15
  16. > Do you know why links were never implemented however, notwithstanding the
    > time required to facilitate this (in the index especially).


    The main reason is that the standard is produced using tools that were
    designed for producing paper, and predate the existence of the web and
    hyperlinks.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Sumit Rajan

    Sumit Rajan Guest

    "Ron Natalie" <> wrote in message
    news:3ff83aac$0$32274$...
    >
    > "Ron Natalie" <> wrote in message

    news:3ff838fb$0$32356$...
    > By the way, ANSI SCREWS AGAIN! Thie 2003 version is missing the TABLE OF

    CONTENTS
    > in the book marks section that both the 1998 C++ and 1999 C standards have

    (and the section numbers
    > in the rest of the document are still not links as they were in the

    drafts).

    I had sent them an email yesterday complaining about this. They have now
    rectified this issue and sent me the version with the bookmarks.

    Regards,
    Sumit.
     
    Sumit Rajan, Jan 5, 2004
    #17
  18. Sumit Rajan

    Ron Natalie Guest

    "Sumit Rajan" <> wrote in message news:btc54j$5i9v6$-berlin.de...
    >


    >
    > I had sent them an email yesterday complaining about this. They have now
    > rectified this issue and sent me the version with the bookmarks.
    >

    Yes, they just emailed me one as well.
     
    Ron Natalie, Jan 5, 2004
    #18
  19. "John Brown" <_nospam@_nospam.com> wrote:
    > I was also told by another committee member sometime ago (his name
    > escapes me off-hand) that members even have an HTML version but the ISO
    > itself is responsible for its release as a ".pdf" file.


    There is indeed a HTML version used by committee members. However, this
    version is not always 100% accurate and is occasionally missing some stuff
    or has mangled text. Thus, it is not fit as a standard document: the
    authorative version is the PDF one, even though the HTML is often used
    when working on this stuff.

    > The document may be
    > just an electronic copy of the final standard but I suspect many developers
    > (myself included) frequently reference it. Proper page numbers, links, and
    > the ability to move back and forth to previously visited pages like in one's
    > favorite (HTML) browser would be a welcome relief.


    If it so much of a relief, you might want to consider joining the committee
    and get the [unofficial] HTML version...

    > I could contact the ISO
    > if they're ultimately responsible but I seriously doubt it would go
    > anywhere. An official source would carry much more weight. Your comments?


    ISO is not responsible for releasing documents to the public. This is the
    job of the national bodies, eg. ANSI, BSI, or DIN. Since these bodies
    receive a reasonable part of their income from selling standard documents
    it took already a huge amount of arguing with them to offer any electronic
    version at a reasonable price at all (my understanding is that C++ was the
    first standard made available in electronic form at low costs thanks to
    Tom Plum pressing the issue with ANSI; recently BSI agreed to publishing
    the C and C++ standards in form of a book at relatively low costs thanks
    to Francis Glassborow pressing the issue with BSI). I doubt that any
    standards body would agree to an easily modifyable format, like HTML: the
    effects of circulating modified versions (well, of course, both circulating
    and modifying version would be illegal) would be pretty bad! Actually,
    some people still use old HTML version of CD1 or CD2 which bad enough
    already...

    Another complication is the production of the HTML in the first place: the
    standard document is still maintained in troff. Actually, I think it is
    even a modified version of troff which means that even if there is a version
    of troff (or groff) which would be capable of creating HTML, it would not
    be able to process the sources for the C++ standard (the reasons for this
    lie in the history of the standard). There was some discussion of moving to
    a more modern source but this isn't an easy task: apart from the effort
    needed to convert the sources, there are some neat features of the current
    system which are not readily available in alternatives. The HTML used
    internally by the committee has some flaws which isn't that harmful because
    the people working on the respective section normally know what should be
    there.

    BTW: there was no standard voted on in 2003. The current C++ standard is
    still the one from 1998. The 2003 document is the 1998 standard augmented
    with the changes from 2003 Technical Corrigendum. However, the resulting
    document is not really binding although implementers are likely to resolve
    conflicts and ambiguities in the 1998 standard to follow the Technical
    Corrigendum. The next C++ standard will not become finished before 2007.
    Actually, I personally doubt that it will become finished before 2009
    barely making the C++0X goal...
    --
    <mailto:> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
    Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>
     
    Dietmar Kuehl, Jan 6, 2004
    #19
  20. Sumit Rajan

    Roger Leigh Guest

    (Dietmar Kuehl) writes:

    > Another complication is the production of the HTML in the first place: the
    > standard document is still maintained in troff. Actually, I think it is
    > even a modified version of troff which means that even if there is a version
    > of troff (or groff) which would be capable of creating HTML, it would not
    > be able to process the sources for the C++ standard (the reasons for this
    > lie in the history of the standard).


    Recent versions of groff include a "grohtml" device, which outputs
    HTML. Just use "-t html".


    --
    Roger Leigh

    Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
     
    Roger Leigh, Jan 6, 2004
    #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. Alexei Polkhanov
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,496
  2. Steven T. Hatton
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    486
    Steven T. Hatton
    Jun 5, 2004
  3. Steven T. Hatton

    Hardcopy of ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) Quality?

    Steven T. Hatton, Jul 8, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    453
    Steven T. Hatton
    Jul 8, 2005
  4. Alok
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,033
  5. ManicQin
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    531
    , India
    Apr 24, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page