*p++ = *q++ undefined? why?

[pete]

N869
7.1.3 Reserved identifiers

This is probably a better quote:

7.1.3 Reserved identifiers
[#1] Each header declares or defines all identifiers listed
in its associated subclause, and optionally declares or
defines identifiers listed in its associated future library
directions subclause and identifiers which are always
reserved either for any use or for use as file scope
identifiers.
-- All identifiers that begin with an underscore and
either an uppercase letter or another underscore are
always reserved for any use.
-- All identifiers that begin with an underscore are
always reserved for use as identifiers with file scope
in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.
-- Each macro name in any of the following subclauses
(including the future library directions) is reserved
for use as specified if any of its associated headers
is included; unless explicitly stated otherwise (see
7.1.4).
-- All identifiers with external linkage in any of the
following subclauses (including the future library
directions) are always reserved for use as identifiers
with external linkage.143)

 

[Bas Wassink]

Bas Wassink wrote:




Search for these substrings:

"All external names described below are reserved
no matter what headers are included by the program"

"Function names that begin with str"

Found it: section 7.26 and further.

Both you and Flash Gordon are right.
I really should get me a printed copy of the standard instead of reading
a 550-page pdf draft version on my computer. That'll hopefully save me
from future embarrassment.

Thank you, both of you.

 

[pete]

I really should get me a printed copy of the standard

I don't know if there is such a thing as a non pdf version
of the standard.

Here's an html c89 draft:
http://rm-f.net/~orange/devel/specifications/c89-draft.html

N869, for C99, is in text. I quote that one a lot.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n869/n869.txt.gz

instead of reading
a 550-page pdf draft version on my computer. That'll hopefully save me
from future embarrassment.

Thank you, both of you.

You're welcome.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I don't know if there is such a thing as a non pdf version
of the standard.

There is - you can spend $200 and buy a paper copy from ANSI or ISO.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Keith Thompson]

There is - you can spend $200 and buy a paper copy from ANSI or ISO.

Or you can spend $18 on a pdf copy and print it yourself (which isn't
free, but is likely to cost less than $182).

 

[Richard Bos]

Or you can spend $18 on a pdf copy and print it yourself (which isn't
free, but is likely to cost less than $182).

Or you can spend some $50 and buy
<http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470845732.html>,
which includes the Rationale, but not TC2.

Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Or you can spend $18 on a pdf copy and print it yourself (which isn't
free, but is likely to cost less than $182).

Marvellous. The question was about where to get a /printed/ copy.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Marvellous. The question was about where to get a /printed/ copy.

Printing a copy is a way to get a printed copy.

 

[CBFalconer]

Marvellous. The question was about where to get a /printed/ copy.

Harrumph - after the action of printing, you /will/ have a printed
copy. If you use something like fineprint in booklet mode you will
even have something with the approximate dimensions of a book.
It will function adequately for enthroned study.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Printing a copy is a way to get a printed copy.

No, thats a way to print it yourself. Personally I don't regard a
bound, indexed copy of a book printed by a professional company as
equivalent to a stack of a-4 sheets clogging up my printer...

And ICBW but the topic of discussion was that the /printed/ version
may differ from the e-version.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Keith Thompson]

No, thats a way to print it yourself. Personally I don't regard a
bound, indexed copy of a book printed by a professional company as
equivalent to a stack of a-4 sheets clogging up my printer...

Yes, printing a copy is a way to get a printed copy. I'm having
trouble understanding how you could disagree with that statement.

It may even happen to be good enough for the OP. (I've done similar
things myself in the past; these days, my laptop display is good
enough that i don't bother with paper.)

You could probably take the PDF file to a professional printer and get
it printed and bound any way you like, which is still likely to cost
less than $182.

If you think a $200 printed copy purchased from ANSI or ISO is better,
you may be right -- but that's an entirely different point. For that
matter, I don't know what a printed copy from ANSI or ISO looks like.
For all I know, it could be a stack of A4 (or 8.5" by 11") paper bound
together.

And ICBW but the topic of discussion was that the /printed/ version
may differ from the e-version.

I don't recall any mention of that in this thread.

 

[Richard Bos]

No, thats a way to print it yourself. Personally I don't regard a
bound, indexed copy of a book printed by a professional company as
equivalent to a stack of a-4 sheets clogging up my printer...

And ICBW but the topic of discussion was that the /printed/ version
may differ from the e-version.

It was, but if there is a difference between n1124.pdf and the printed
version, it is probably negligable. The difference with n869 was larger.

Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Yes, printing a copy is a way to get a printed copy. I'm having
trouble understanding how you could disagree with that statement.

I can see that you are, and given that I've explained what I consider
the difference to be, I find that rather odd, but there we go.

You could probably take the PDF file to a professional printer and get
it printed and bound any way you like, which is still likely to cost
less than $182.

Did you check the license terms for the PDF?

I don't recall any mention of that in this thread.

Maybe I'm crossing it with another thread.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Bas Wassink]

I can see that you are, and given that I've explained what I consider
the difference to be, I find that rather odd, but there we go.




Did you check the license terms for the PDF?




Maybe I'm crossing it with another thread.
Mark McIntyre

I just got an e-mail from my local (The Netherlands) ISO-standards
retailer, informing me it's 235,15 euro excluding taxes to get a
hardcopy. So I guess it's not such a bad idea to clog up my printer with
the PDF-version.

Bas

 

[Micah Cowan]

I can see that you are, and given that I've explained what I consider
the difference to be, I find that rather odd, but there we go.

No you haven't. You've explained why you like the "official" version
better; you have not explained why printing a copy is not a method for
obtaining a printed copy, especially when it obviously is, by
definition.

Did you check the license terms for the PDF?

It is not encrypted, and therefore, there are no ("honor-bound")
restrictions on viewing nor printing.

In my country, at least, I'm fairly certain that printing a personal
copy for personal use is "fair use", regardless of what a license
might say to the contrary. If you can read it, you can read it however
you may choose. I may be wrong, however; and I don't doubt that at
least one judge somewhere disagrees with me... and of course, IANAL,
obviously.

How could it be? It damn well better /not/ be. Assuming, of course,
we're not talking about the /draft/ version that incorporated the
TCs.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

No you haven't.

I have, but this is such a stupid argument, even for we anal
retentives of CLC, that I don't propose to bend over to show you how
tight my a*se is any further.

How could it be? It damn well better /not/ be. Assuming, of course,
we're not talking about the /draft/ version that incorporated the
TCs.

Typography differences.





Mark McIntyre

 

[Keith Thompson]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:38:41 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Micah Cowan


Typography differences.

What differences? Between what and what?

Are you saying that that there are differences between the printed C99
standard (sold in hard copy form by ANSI and/or ISO) and the PDF C99
standard (also sold by ANSI and/or ISO)? I don't recall hearing about
this before. Can you provide specific examples?

I know there are glitches in the PDF version of the C90 standard, but
those exist because the PDF was apparently created by scanning a paper
copy. The C99 PDF was not created that way.

Incidentally, anyone who wants to print his own copy can just download
n1124.pdf and either print it himself or take it to a professional
printer. It includes the full C99 standard as modified by TC1 and
TC2, with all the changes clearly marked with change bars. I find it
more useful than the official C99 standard (which I also own a copy
of). It's covered by copyright, like any work not released to the
public domain, but it's not covered by the same licensing terms as the
PDF version of the official C99 standard, so printing your own copy is
almost certainly fair use.

(I'm carefully avoiding the question of whether a copy that you print
yourself, or have someone else print for you, constitutes a "printed
copy".)

I don't believe ANSI or ISO offers a bound paper copy of n1124, so if
you're into dead trees you're on your own.

I am not a lawyer. Treating anything I say or write as legal advice
invokes undefined behavior.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


How could it be? It damn well better /not/ be. Assuming, of course,
we're not talking about the /draft/ version that incorporated the
TCs.

The point arose from searching for __ (double underscore) and
displayed results. I pointed out that the same file (n1124.pdf)
produced different search results on FoxRead and Acroread 4.05.
The search failed on foxread, succeeded on acro. So I suspect the
differences arise from interpretation of input keys. Others have
reported failures on later versions of acroread.

Maybe we should see what Ghostview does.

--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943