Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > OT & FYI: Accelerated C++ Missing Pages. Check yours!

Reply
Thread Tools

OT & FYI: Accelerated C++ Missing Pages. Check yours!

 
 
Steven T. Hatton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
If you happen to have Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo, and haven't gotten
around to reading it, I suggest you count the pages between page 18 and
page 51. I came up with zero. This is very disappointing since I have
been intending to read the book for some time now. I finally picked it up
with the expectation that I would breeze through it as a review and an
alternative expert perspective on C++. Now it looks as though I will have
to wait until I am able to get the book replaced.
--
"[M]y dislike for the preprocessor is well known. Cpp is essential in C
programming, and still important in conventional C++ implementations, but
it is a hack, and so are most of the techniques that rely on it. ...I think
the time has come to be serious about macro-free C++ programming." - B. S.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
"Steven T. Hatton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> If you happen to have Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo, and haven't

gotten
> around to reading it, I suggest you count the pages between page 18 and
> page 51. I came up with zero. This is very disappointing since I have
> been intending to read the book for some time now. I finally picked it up
> with the expectation that I would breeze through it as a review and an
> alternative expert perspective on C++. Now it looks as though I will have
> to wait until I am able to get the book replaced.


I just looked through copies of several different printings, and the pages
are all fine in those copies. That's a relief, because it suggests that
your problem is not systematic, but is probably a relatively rare
phenomenon.

The copies I checked include ones from the two latest printings. Can you
tell me which printing you have?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Wahler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2004
"Steven T. Hatton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you happen to have Accelerated C++ by Koenig and Moo, and haven't

gotten
> around to reading it, I suggest you count the pages between page 18 and
> page 51. I came up with zero.


They're OK in my copy (First Printing, Aug 2000). The book
does have some typos and errors, yes (mostly rectified by
web errata pages), but all the book's pages are there.

> This is very disappointing


I can imagine.

> since I have
> been intending to read the book for some time now. I finally picked it up
> with the expectation that I would breeze through it as a review and an
> alternative expert perspective on C++. Now it looks as though I will have
> to wait until I am able to get the book replaced.


Yes, definitely go back to where you got it and request a refund
or replacement.

If you got your book in a book store, perhaps some other patron
ripped out those two chapters and took them. Or perhaps it was
a simple mechanical malfunction that went unnoticed during printing.

-Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven T. Hatton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004
Andrew Koenig wrote:

> I just looked through copies of several different printings, and the pages
> are all fine in those copies. That's a relief, because it suggests that
> your problem is not systematic, but is probably a relatively rare
> phenomenon.


That's been said of me more than once.

> The copies I checked include ones from the two latest printings. Can you
> tell me which printing you have?


December 2003, 7th printing. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind of
physical mechanical malfunction in the fabrication stage of printing.
There are no pages missaligned, bent, loose, excessively or insufficiently
glued, etc. I'm not an expert in bookbinding, but this defect appears to
have been generated at a level above the physical process of binding.
That's what makes me suspect I'm not the only one to find these pages
missing. If I am. That's all for the better. If not, I hope my calling
attention to the situation will help all parties involved identify and
correct the problem.
--
"[M]y dislike for the preprocessor is well known. Cpp is essential in C
programming, and still important in conventional C++ implementations, but
it is a hack, and so are most of the techniques that rely on it. ...I think
the time has come to be serious about macro-free C++ programming." - B. S.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004
"Steven T. Hatton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> > The copies I checked include ones from the two latest printings. Can

you
> > tell me which printing you have?


> December 2003, 7th printing. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind

of
> physical mechanical malfunction in the fabrication stage of printing.
> There are no pages missaligned, bent, loose, excessively or insufficiently
> glued, etc. I'm not an expert in bookbinding, but this defect appears to
> have been generated at a level above the physical process of binding.
> That's what makes me suspect I'm not the only one to find these pages
> missing. If I am. That's all for the better. If not, I hope my calling
> attention to the situation will help all parties involved identify and
> correct the problem.


I just looked at my copy of the 7th printing, and it looks fine.

Incidentally, you said originally that the missing pages were 18-51. That
can't be right, because page 18, being an even-numbered page, would share a
physical piece of paper with page 17. Similarly, if page 51 is missing,
page 52 must also be missing because they share a physical piece of paper.
So what are the exact numbers?

The book has 14 pages with roman numerals before page 1, so the page with
number 1 is actually the 15th page in the book. Books are usually bound in
"signatures" of 16 pages, which means that page 3 is the first page of a
signature, as is page 19. I am therefore going to guess that page 18 is
actually present, and page 19 is the first missing page. If two signatures
were missing, then the first non-missing page after page 19 would be page
19+32, or page 51. So if pages 19-50 were missing, that would be exactly
two signatures, just the kind of problem that one might expect to find if
there were a mechanical error in the printing process.

Anyway, that's my guess. I would appreciate confirmation of the exact
numbers of the missing pages, either publicly or by private email.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven T. Hatton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-27-2004
Andrew Koenig wrote:

> So if pages 19-50 were missing, that would be exactly
> two signatures, just the kind of problem that one might expect to find if
> there were a mechanical error in the printing process.
>
> Anyway, that's my guess. I would appreciate confirmation of the exact
> numbers of the missing pages, either publicly or by private email.


Ok, I'm gonna be a pedant here. What I originally wrote was "I suggest you
count the pages _between_ page 18 and page 51." The pages missing are those
which should lie between 18 and 51, i.e., 19 through 50, inclusive. Yes,
that does seem to constitute a reasonable count and numbering for a couple
of signatures. Typically when a signature is omitted in my printing
operation it is due to operator error:

hattons@ljosalfr:/download/org/gnu/gcc-3.4.0/gcc/
Fri Aug 27 15:24:37:> cat $(which make-book.sh)
#!/bin/bash
SIGNATURE=20
usage="make-book.sh [-s signature] filename"
while getopts "w:c:" opt; do
case $opt in
s ) SIGNATURE=$OPTARG ;;
\? ) echo $usage
exit 1 ;;
esac
done

shift $(($OPTIND - 1))
FILE_NAME=$1
psbook -s$SIGNATURE $FILE_NAME | psnup -pletter -2 >
${FILE_NAME%.ps}-book.ps;
hattons@ljosalfr:/download/org/gnu/gcc-3.4.0/gcc/
Fri Aug 27 15:25:12:>

But the lack of confirmation from others suggests to me it was an isolated
mechanical anomaly which produced the defect. I really have little concept
of the machinery used to mass produce books. At this point it's just idle
curiosity, but I would really like to understand /how/ this happened. I
would expect such an incongruence to be fairly noticeable to the machine
operator. Perhaps they simply let it pass on the assumption that 'it'll
show up eventually'.
--
"[M]y dislike for the preprocessor is well known. Cpp is essential in C
programming, and still important in conventional C++ implementations, but
it is a hack, and so are most of the techniques that rely on it. ...I think
the time has come to be serious about macro-free C++ programming." - B. S.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Accelerated" certification testing programs Jameson D MCSE 2 11-26-2004 01:47 PM
Re: Code review requested, Accelerated C++ Vyacheslav Kononenko C++ 0 10-18-2004 01:58 PM
Re: Code review requested, Accelerated C++ Mike Wahler C++ 1 10-18-2004 03:43 AM
Accelerated C++ book outdated? Markus Dreyer C++ 35 01-28-2004 09:28 AM
Accelerated C++ Sample Solutions Martin C++ 8 10-23-2003 05:32 PM



Advertisments