Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #15375 > unrolled thread

C11 reference book

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  C11 reference book Ioannis Vranos <ioannis.vranos@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 08:16 -0800
    Re: C11 reference book Ralph Spitzner <rasp@spitzner.org> - 2012-01-04 10:48 +0100
      Re: C11 reference book Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-04 13:40 +0000
        Re: C11 reference book superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-01-04 15:11 +0100
          Re: C11 reference book Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-01-04 19:56 +0000
            Re: C11 reference book Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-01-04 22:25 +0000
              Re: C11 reference book James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-04 19:01 -0500

#15375 — C11 reference book

Hi all,

Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11 learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?

Is there anything like this for C99?


Thanks a lot,

Ioannis Vranos

http://tcho.net/cppdeveloper

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15403

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11 learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?

All I know is:
a) They discovered threads
b) "    have some sort of a synchronization for a)
c) this is c.l.c


    :-P
      -rasp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15406

On Wed, 2012-01-04, Ralph Spitzner wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11
>> learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?
>
> All I know is:
> a) They discovered threads
> b) "    have some sort of a synchronization for a)
> c) this is c.l.c

Why wouldn't C11 be ontopic here?  Did you think he meant C++11?

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15407

Jorgen Grahn ha scritto:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04, Ralph Spitzner wrote:
>> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11
>>> learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?
>> All I know is:
>> a) They discovered threads
>> b) "    have some sort of a synchronization for a)
>> c) this is c.l.c
> 
> Why wouldn't C11 be ontopic here?  Did you think he meant C++11?

maybe he meant "go to comp.std.c".

bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15413

On Wed, 2012-01-04, superpollo wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn ha scritto:
>> On Wed, 2012-01-04, Ralph Spitzner wrote:
>>> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11
>>>> learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?
>>> All I know is:
>>> a) They discovered threads
>>> b) "    have some sort of a synchronization for a)
>>> c) this is c.l.c
>> 
>> Why wouldn't C11 be ontopic here?  Did you think he meant C++11?
>
> maybe he meant "go to comp.std.c".

Possibly, although I fail to see that c.s.c would be a better place to
ask the question.

I should add that my interpretation of "this is c.l.c" as "you are
offtopic" was just a guess.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15418

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:56:10 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04, superpollo wrote:
>> Jorgen Grahn ha scritto:
>>> On Wed, 2012-01-04, Ralph Spitzner wrote:
>>>> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since C11 is finalised, does anyone know any upcoming C11
>>>>> learn/reference book, like TCPL2 was for C90?
>>>> All I know is:
>>>> a) They discovered threads
>>>> b) "    have some sort of a synchronization for a) c) this is c.l.c
>>> 
>>> Why wouldn't C11 be ontopic here?  Did you think he meant C++11?
>>
>> maybe he meant "go to comp.std.c".
> 
> Possibly, although I fail to see that c.s.c would be a better place to
> ask the question.
> 
> I should add that my interpretation of "this is c.l.c" as "you are
> offtopic" was just a guess.

In my opinion, until there is a conforming C11 compiler available on some 
platform, discussion of C11 is purely theoretical and belongs in 
comp.std.c.

Having said that, by that standard, C99 is only barely topical in 
comp.lang.c, just scraping in by the skin of its teeth.

C90 will be the only truly portable C standard for another generation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15430

On 01/04/2012 05:25 PM, Quentin Pope wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:56:10 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-01-04, superpollo wrote:
>>> Jorgen Grahn ha scritto:
...
>>>> Why wouldn't C11 be ontopic here?  Did you think he meant C++11?
>>>
>>> maybe he meant "go to comp.std.c".
>>
>> Possibly, although I fail to see that c.s.c would be a better place to
>> ask the question.
>>
>> I should add that my interpretation of "this is c.l.c" as "you are
>> offtopic" was just a guess.
> 
> In my opinion, until there is a conforming C11 compiler available on some 
> platform, discussion of C11 is purely theoretical and belongs in 
> comp.std.c.

comp.std.c if for discussions about the C standard: what it says now,
what it said in previous versions, what it should say in future
versions, whether a given piece of code had defined behavior according
to that standard, whether a given compiler conforms to that standard,
etc. Discussions about the language defined by that standard are
off-topic in that group, except insofar as they also involve issues
about the standard itself. It seems like a subtle distinction, but it
really isn't; "Are compound literals allowed by the standard?", "Is it
feasible to implement compound literals?", and "Should compound literals
be removed from the standard?" are all on-topic. "How do I use compound
literals?" is off-topic there.

comp.lang.c.moderated is for discussions of the standard C language,
even purely theoretical aspects of it, such as how to use features of
C11 that no one has implemented yet. comp.lang.c is a group with no
particular charter, that is commonly used for that same purpose, but is
also heavily troll-infested. It's also, for some reason, used instead of
comp.compilers.lcc for announcements concerning lcc-win32.  If and when
more people to move their discussions over to comp.lang.c.moderated
(don't hold your breath), we can finally abandon this newsgroup to the
trolls and the advertisers.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web