The Annotated C++ Language Standard by Koenig & Stroustrup????

[Steven T. Hatton]

In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called _The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.

 

[Mike Higginbottom]

In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called
_The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual
written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now. I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].


[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201514591/002-9019986-7328842?v=glance
[2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

You can still get it from Amazon[1] but it's very out of date now.

Until I reread the chapter, I thought the same thing. But that is Ellis &
Stroustrup. The one I was talking about was Koenig & Stroustrup. I have
[1]. It is _way_ out of date.

I
guess most of the core language coverage is still relevant but I'd
consider it neither complete nor reliable today and that's what you need
in a book like this. It seems unlikely that this will be updated, partly
due to issues with ISO but also because the market has matured to the
point where there are a few standard texts these days that cover
everything from most perspectives. An alternative you might want to take
a look at is Brokken's C++ Annotations[2].

That does look work bookmarking. I have yet to find exactly what I want.
For example this: http://www.cppreference.com/index.html is pretty nice,
but it falls a bit short. If I try to find all the possible syntactic
variants of the use of /const/ by clicking the key word, all I get is a
general definition. I'll grant you, a new ARM would probably not present
information that way either.

[1]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201514591/002-9019986-7328842?v=glance
[2] http://www.icce.rug.nl/documents/

I stumbled onto this. It may be a bit too pedestrian, but it may also be
complete enough for a core language reference:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jallert/cs1521/C++Overview/ppframe.htm
I've been wanting an excuse to post this one. Now I have it:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mcdonald/cs108/

 

[Bjarne Stroustrup]

In TC++PL(SE) Stroustrup asserts there is a companion reference called _The
Annotated C++ Language Standard_ by Koenig & Stroustrup. It doesn't show
up on a google. What gives here? I know there is mention of a problem
here: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#ARM I guess this is the
same work? This seems to mean there is a complete reference manual written
by the two most qualified authors laying fallow. I find that disturbing.

The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.

- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:

The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess this means I can stop grinding my axe
with ill intent toward ISO. ;-)

- Bjarne Stroustrup; http://www.research.att.com/~bs

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ

I certainly understood it as suggesting ISO was responsible for the ARM++
not being available.

BTW, on page 8 of TC++PL(SE) you wrote "Facilities such as dynamic loading,
incremental compilation, and a database of type definitions can be put to
good use without affecting the language." What were you suggesting by "a
database of type definitions"?

STH

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

The simple (and I think sad) story is that we got too busy with other
things - mostly C++ related - that we never got that ARM++ written.

That explanation is far more gratifying that the misunderstanding I had.

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ

Something else came to mind regarding this topic. Since TC++PL(SE) was
intended to have a companion book (according to the author, that is),
perhaps recommending an alternative would be a sufficient means of
addressing the same need.

For myself, what I have found lacking is a comprehensive and clear
exposition of the core language features in the form of a reference. For
example, I would like to be able to look up a keyword in an index, and be
directed to a section defining the keyword, and showing an example of all
forms of its usage. To have such a thing in electronic form would be even
more helpful.

As for an ARM++, that seems to be something more useful to the veteran C++
programmer. There are many design choices represented in ISO/IEC
14882:2003(E), but, due to the nature of the document, there is little
communication of the motivation for the decisions. Much of this may be
covered in D&E, which I haven't found time to read yet.

Then there seem to be a few things in the 14882:2003(E) which not everybody
should know. Not that they are bad. It's just that things like that are
potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

PS. I must find time to revise my FAQ

This appears to be an exceptionally good resource. It does describe C/C++
with AIX extensions, but from what I've been able to glean, the authors did
an honerable job of distinguishing between the extentions and the Standard.

C for AIX, Version 6.0, C/C++ Language Reference
http://ibmdocs.ncep.noaa.gov/c6/