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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #111355 > unrolled thread

High quality resources for learning modern C?

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

Contents

  High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 04:44 -0700
    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-06-03 11:49 +0000
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 05:17 -0700
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 05:45 -0700
    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 14:43 +0200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-06-03 17:21 +0200
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 18:15 +0200
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-06-03 21:16 +0200
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 22:56 +0200
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2017-06-03 23:32 +0200
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-06-03 22:20 +0200
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 23:00 +0200
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-06-04 00:03 +0200
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 00:08 +0200
    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2017-06-03 18:32 +0200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 17:05 -0700
    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-06-03 13:30 -0400
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-03 18:59 +0100
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 20:49 +0200
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-06-03 21:12 +0200
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 23:13 +0200
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-06-03 23:37 +0200
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 15:12 -0700
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 00:16 +0200
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-06-03 21:08 +0200
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-03 21:08 +0100
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-06 19:29 +0100
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2017-06-03 17:15 -0400
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-05 22:58 +0100
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-05 15:51 -0700
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-06 00:22 +0100
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-05 17:05 -0700
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-05 17:57 -0700
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-03 18:13 +0000
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 17:07 -0700
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-03 18:20 -0700
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 19:59 -0700
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 20:39 +0200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-06-03 14:01 -0700
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 17:08 -0700
    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-04 16:53 +0200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:04 +0200
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-04 22:03 +0100
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 16:11 -0700
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 00:43 +0100
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 11:56 +0200
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 03:28 -0700
                  Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 12:39 +0200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 16:06 -0700
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-05 14:09 +1200
      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-05 08:43 +0000
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 12:08 +0200
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 03:49 -0700
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 14:53 +0200
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 11:48 +0100
        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-05 07:28 -0700
          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 11:52 -0700
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-05 12:23 -0700
            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-05 12:46 -0700
              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 17:46 -0700
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-06-06 01:58 +0100
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-05 20:09 -0700
                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-05 20:16 -0700
                  Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 21:57 -0700
                    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-06 07:36 -0700
                      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-06 09:29 -0700
                        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-06 10:13 -0700
                          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-06 13:37 -0700
                            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-06 15:23 -0700
                              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-06 16:32 -0700
                                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:02 -0700
                                  Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-06 20:20 -0700
                                    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 18:36 -0700
                                      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-07 19:25 -0700
                                        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 20:09 -0700
                                          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-07 20:56 -0700
                                          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-08 09:03 -0700
                                        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-06-07 23:14 -0400
                                      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-07 20:42 -0700
                                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-06 20:08 -0700
                                  Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-07 07:46 -0700
                                    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-07 09:02 -0700
                                      Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-07 15:14 -0700
                                        Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-07 16:36 -0700
                                          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-08 08:10 -0700
                                            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-08 10:43 -0700
                                          Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-06-08 12:37 -0400
                                            Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-09 10:36 -0700
                                              Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-09 11:09 -0700
                                                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-06-09 12:00 -0700
                                                  Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-09 12:45 -0700
                                                    Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-06-09 14:11 -0700
                                                Re: High quality resources for learning modern C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-11 15:54 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#111472

On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us, I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
> Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
> Thanks, Leon.
> 

A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
understood reference.

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

#111473

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
> understood reference.

The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
reference... IMHO that's only a scam from C++ evangelists!

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

#111491

GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
>> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
>> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
>> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
>> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
>> understood reference.
>
> The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
> reference...

I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
a look and see if agree.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#111497

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:03:34 AM UTC+10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >
> >> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
> >> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
> >> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
> >> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
> >> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
> >> understood reference.
> >
> > The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
> > reference...
> 
> I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
> actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
> a look and see if agree.
> 
> <snip>
> -- 
> Ben.

The quality of the reference on that site is good, but I find the site hard to navigate and it does mix C and C++ up sometimes. 

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

#111501

Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:03:34 AM UTC+10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
>> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
>> >> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
>> >> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
>> >> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
>> >> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
>> >> understood reference.
>> >
>> > The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
>> > reference...
>> 
>> I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
>> actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
>> a look and see if agree.
>> 
>> <snip>
>
> The quality of the reference on that site is good, but I find the site
> hard to navigate and it does mix C and C++ up sometimes.

The site includes C and C++ references but the URL given was for the C
part.  When you say the site mixes them up sometimes, what do you mean?
I've not come across that myself.  Are there C++ pages in the C part?

-- 
Ben.

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

#111523

On 05/06/17 01:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:03:34 AM UTC+10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site
>>>>> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to
>>>>> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It
>>>>> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a
>>>>> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily
>>>>> understood reference.
>>>>
>>>> The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
>>>> reference...
>>>
>>> I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
>>> actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
>>> a look and see if agree.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> The quality of the reference on that site is good, but I find the site
>> hard to navigate and it does mix C and C++ up sometimes.
> 
> The site includes C and C++ references but the URL given was for the C
> part.  When you say the site mixes them up sometimes, what do you mean?
> I've not come across that myself.  Are there C++ pages in the C part?
> 

There are certainly cross-references between the C and C++ parts (at the 
very least, many C pages have a link at the bottom to the corresponding 
C++ page).  And sometimes pages have information about the differences 
between how a particular function or concept works in C and C++ - I find 
this helpful.

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

#111526

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:34 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/06/17 01:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> >> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:03:34 AM UTC+10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
> >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site
> >>>>> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to
> >>>>> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It
> >>>>> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a
> >>>>> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily
> >>>>> understood reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
> >>>> reference...
> >>>
> >>> I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
> >>> actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
> >>> a look and see if agree.
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>
> >> The quality of the reference on that site is good, but I find the site
> >> hard to navigate and it does mix C and C++ up sometimes.
> > 
> > The site includes C and C++ references but the URL given was for the C
> > part.  When you say the site mixes them up sometimes, what do you mean?
> > I've not come across that myself.  Are there C++ pages in the C part?
> > 
> 
> There are certainly cross-references between the C and C++ parts (at the 
> very least, many C pages have a link at the bottom to the corresponding 
> C++ page).  And sometimes pages have information about the differences 
> between how a particular function or concept works in C and C++ - I find 
> this helpful.

This is what I meant when I said that the website mixes C and C++ up. The website isn't broken, its just very easy to go into the C++ section of that website.
Thanks, Leon

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

#111528

On 05/06/17 12:28, Leon Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:56:34 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/06/17 01:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Leon Taylor <leontaylor476@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:03:34 AM UTC+10, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:53:56 +0200
>>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site
>>>>>>> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to
>>>>>>> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It
>>>>>>> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a
>>>>>>> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily
>>>>>>> understood reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The web site is called "cppreference" and you assume it could provide a good C
>>>>>> reference...
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt he assumes it -- I am pretty sure he knows it from having
>>>>> actually looked as the URL he quoted.  It's a good C reference.  Go have
>>>>> a look and see if agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The quality of the reference on that site is good, but I find the site
>>>> hard to navigate and it does mix C and C++ up sometimes.
>>>
>>> The site includes C and C++ references but the URL given was for the C
>>> part.  When you say the site mixes them up sometimes, what do you mean?
>>> I've not come across that myself.  Are there C++ pages in the C part?
>>>
>>
>> There are certainly cross-references between the C and C++ parts (at the
>> very least, many C pages have a link at the bottom to the corresponding
>> C++ page).  And sometimes pages have information about the differences
>> between how a particular function or concept works in C and C++ - I find
>> this helpful.
> 
> This is what I meant when I said that the website mixes C and C++ up.
> The website isn't broken, its just very easy to go into the C++
> section of that website.
The website covers both C and C++.  It also covers all versions of the C 
and C++ standards.  That does mean that sometimes it will have 
information that is not relevant for the language or version of the 
language that particularly interests you at that point.  But I think the 
site does a good job of marking these differences clearly - you should 
be able to see very quickly if you have strayed to the dark side, as 
some people view C++.

> Thanks, Leon
> 

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

#111495

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us, I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
> > Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
> > Thanks, Leon.
> > 
> 
> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The site 
> also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it tries to 
> cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly accessible manner.  It 
> is not a replacement for the official standards, of course, nor is it a 
> tutorial or teaching book - it lies in between as a (relatively) easily 
> understood reference.

I know about that site, but I tend to avoid it since it does mix C and C++ up sometimes. I also find it relatively hard to navigate sometimes. The quality of the reference is pretty good though.

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

#111506

On 06/ 5/17 11:06 AM, Leon Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:54:06 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
>>> Hi everyone, I have gotten back into programming C after a long
>>> Hiatus. Like many of us, I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to
>>> learn modern C (C99/C11). Can any of you recommend a good
>>> book/resource? Thanks, Leon.
>>>
>>
>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.  The
>> site also covers C++, so be careful not to mix things up.  But it
>> tries to cover as much as possible of modern C in a fairly
>> accessible manner.  It is not a replacement for the official
>> standards, of course, nor is it a tutorial or teaching book - it
>> lies in between as a (relatively) easily understood reference.
>
> I know about that site, but I tend to avoid it since it does mix C
> and C++ up sometimes. I also find it relatively hard to navigate
> sometimes. The quality of the reference is pretty good though.
>
Does it mix C and C++ up?  I don't think I have ever seen that.  If you 
do, the site is a wiki, so you can comment or fix.

If the navigation box top left is inadequate, google is you friend!

-- 
Ian

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

#111516

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us,
> > I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
> > Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
> 
> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.

Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
assumptions they have made.

Richard

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

#111525

On 05/06/17 10:43, Richard Bos wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us,
>>> I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
>>> Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
>>
>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.
> 
> Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
> they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
> assumptions they have made.
> 

It does not say that C requires ASCII - it just gives the chart for 
convenient reference.

And while it is perfectly true that C does not /require/ ASCII, 
virtually all real-world C programs, C compilers, C programmers, and C 
run-time environments work in ASCII as the main character set. 
(Possibly they will use Unicode as well, but that matches ASCII at the 
start.)

Yes, there /are/ systems which use EBCDIC - and probably a few other 
character sets.  But the percentage of usage is totally negligible for 
most people - and for those that /do/ need something other than ASCII, 
they know what they are doing.


The site is a reference site and guideline for practical programming. 
It does not attempt to duplicate the standards in all their details - it 
tries to provide a balance that is more useful to programmers.

But have a look here if you are worried about its treatment of character 
sets.

<http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/translation_phases>

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

#111530

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:08:38 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 05/06/17 10:43, Richard Bos wrote:
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>> I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us,
> >>> I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
> >>> Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
> >>
> >> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.
> > 
> > Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
> > they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
> > assumptions they have made.
> > 
> 
> It does not say that C requires ASCII - it just gives the chart for 
> convenient reference.
> 
> And while it is perfectly true that C does not /require/ ASCII, 
> virtually all real-world C programs, C compilers, C programmers, and C 
> run-time environments work in ASCII as the main character set. 
> (Possibly they will use Unicode as well, but that matches ASCII at the 
> start.)
> 
This is why many programmers are no good at writing pedagogical material.

It's required to simplify, which means making concrete, and sometimes
providing wrong information. Programmers are trained to handle the edge cases,
like systems which run on non-Ascii, and they tend to react badly to this.

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

#111537

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 12:08:28 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> And while it is perfectly true that C does not /require/ ASCII, 
> virtually all real-world C programs, C compilers, C programmers, and C 
> run-time environments work in ASCII as the main character set. 
> (Possibly they will use Unicode as well, but that matches ASCII at the 
> start.)

Outside of the United States there's no ASCII but ISO 646 (aka ECMA-6) support.

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

#111529

raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:

> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/17 13:44, Leon Taylor wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> > I have gotten back into programming C after a long Hiatus. Like many of us,
>> > I learnt C from the K&R2 but I want to learn modern C (C99/C11).
>> > Can any of you recommend a good book/resource?
>> 
>> A convenient reference is <http://en.cppreference.com/w/c>.
>
> Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
> they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
> assumptions they have made.

I don't think any page says that C requires ASCII so your use of "other"
is a little odd.  Presumably your worry is that the authors have made
some erroneous assumptions based on the appearance of a page you don't
consider useful.

It's fair enough to wonder why things like character codes are
illustrated with respect to any particular encoding at all, but that's a
matter of style -- a lot of people prefer concrete examples.

-- 
Ben.

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

#111545

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Bos wrote:
> Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
> they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
> assumptions they have made.

The C Standard does not officially require that C implementations store
signed values in two's-complement format, but so far as I can tell the
probability of anyone encountering a non-contrived C99 or C11 implementation
that uses anyone else is zero.

While some people might encounter C99 or C11 implementations that don't
interpret code 0x21 as a "not-operator" token, 0x22 as a string delimiter,
0x23 as a preprocessor marker, 0x25 as a "remainder-operator" etc., for
programmers outside certain specialized fields the probability of having
to use such an implementation would be vanishingly small.

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

#111569

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:28:47 AM UTC-7, supe...@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Careful! The very first link in that reference is to an ASCII chart. If
> > they think C requires ASCII, I'd be very wary of what other incorrect
> > assumptions they have made.
> 
> The C Standard does not officially require that C implementations store
> signed values in two's-complement format, but so far as I can tell the
> probability of anyone encountering a non-contrived C99 or C11 implementation
> that uses anyone else is zero.
> 
> While some people might encounter C99 or C11 implementations that don't
> interpret code 0x21 as a "not-operator" token, 0x22 as a string delimiter,
> 0x23 as a preprocessor marker, 0x25 as a "remainder-operator" etc., for
> programmers outside certain specialized fields the probability of having
> to use such an implementation would be vanishingly small.

The standard, as written, seems too strict about what character
means what. But anyone could write a pre-pre-processor that 
converts any set of "tokens" into C form provided the two sets
of token corresponded one-to-one.

Like translating the keywords into another language.

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

#111571

David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> The standard, as written, seems too strict about what character
> means what.

In what way is it too strict?  What would be the advantage of making it
less so?

>             But anyone could write a pre-pre-processor that 
> converts any set of "tokens" into C form provided the two sets
> of token corresponded one-to-one.
>
> Like translating the keywords into another language.

Translating characters is already done in translation phase 1:

    Physical source file multibyte characters are mapped, in an
    implementation-defined manner, to the source character set
    (introducing new-line characters for end-of-line indicators) if
    necessary.

(In many implementations, that translation is trivial.)  Translating
tokens is another matter.  If an implementation translates "si" to
"if", what happens if I use "si" as an identifier?

I am admittedly fortunate in that most language keywords happen to be
in, or are derived from, my native language.  I wonder how much demand
there really is among non-English programmers for non-English keywords.
(I've seen at least one language with Portuguese keywords, but it seems
to be a niche language.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#111575

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
...
> The standard, as written, seems too strict about what character
> means what.

The standard, as written, requires that '+' be used for addition, but imposes
almost no requirements on how '+' is represented in the source code file, beyond
making the source character set implementation-defined. How can it be "too
strict", when, by default, it imposes almost no requirements on the matter?

It requires that each member of the basic character set be represented by a
single byte. Given that there are more than twice as many values that can be
stored in an 8-bit byte than there are members of the basic character set,
that's not a particularly onerous requirement. It also requires that '0'-'9' be
consecutive characters in that order (5.2.1p3). The source character set is NOT
required to contain any of the following characters: "\a\b\r\n\0", those are
only required in the execution character set. The standard imposes some
requirements on the encoding of multi-byte characters (5.2.1.2p1), but nothing
particularly onerous.
Those are the only requirements the standard imposes on the encoding used.

> But anyone could write a pre-pre-processor that 
> converts any set of "tokens" into C form provided the two sets
> of token corresponded one-to-one.

True - in particular, any translation that can be put into that form could be performed by a fully conforming implementation of C during translation phase 1: 

"Physical source file multibyte characters are mapped, in an implementation-
defined manner, to the source character set (introducing new-line characters for
end-of-line indicators) if necessary." (5.1.1.2p1).

"Implementation-defined" gives you all of the freedom you need to perform an arbitrary translation of that type.

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

#111600

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:46:15 PM UTC-7, james...@verizon.net wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 2:52:54 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> ...
> > The standard, as written, seems too strict about what character
> > means what.
> 
> The standard, as written, requires that '+' be used for addition, but imposes
> almost no requirements on how '+' is represented in the source code file, beyond
> making the source character set implementation-defined. How can it be "too
> strict", when, by default, it imposes almost no requirements on the matter?
> 
> It requires that each member of the basic character set be represented by a
> single byte. Given that there are more than twice as many values that can be
> stored in an 8-bit byte than there are members of the basic character set,
> that's not a particularly onerous requirement. It also requires that '0'-'9' be
> consecutive characters in that order (5.2.1p3). The source character set is NOT
> required to contain any of the following characters: "\a\b\r\n\0", those are
> only required in the execution character set. The standard imposes some
> requirements on the encoding of multi-byte characters (5.2.1.2p1), but nothing
> particularly onerous.
> Those are the only requirements the standard imposes on the encoding used.
> 
> > But anyone could write a pre-pre-processor that 
> > converts any set of "tokens" into C form provided the two sets
> > of token corresponded one-to-one.
> 
> True - in particular, any translation that can be put into that form could be performed by a fully conforming implementation of C during translation phase 1: 
> 
> "Physical source file multibyte characters are mapped, in an implementation-
> defined manner, to the source character set (introducing new-line characters for
> end-of-line indicators) if necessary." (5.1.1.2p1).
> 
> "Implementation-defined" gives you all of the freedom you need to perform an arbitrary translation of that type.

How does C cope with source code in UTF-8 etc when the source
uses more characters than exist in the "source character set"?

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

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web