«

In <bmr7jh$pugo5$> Jeremy Yallop <> writes:

>Nope. K&R1 was published in 1978. The ANSI standardisation process
>for C began in 1983. K&R2 was published in 1988 and the first ANSI C
>standard was published at the end of the following year.

However, the 2nd and later printings of K&R2 postdate the C89 standard and
were updated to actually describe it, rather than the draft the first
printing was based on. To know which flavour of the book you have, simply
look at its cover: it clearly states whether the book is covering the
draft or the actual standard.

Note that the update was not 100% accurate, there are a few minor
differences between the draft and C89 that haven't yet been fixed in
the book.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email:

Dan Pop wrote:
> In <bmp406$pl413$> Jeremy Yallop <> writes:
>
>>Ian Tuomi wrote:
>>> What is the "official" C definition nowadays? C99?
>>
>>Yes, C99, otherwise known as ISO/IEC 9899:1999. There have also been
>>a couple of (very minor) updates since C99 came out.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm only aware of TC1. What am I missing?

Hmm. Reading that again I'm not sure what I was thinking of. Perhaps
TC2 to C90. Sorry about that.

Jeremy.

Dan Pop wrote:
> In <bmr7jh$pugo5$> Jeremy Yallop <> writes:
>
>>Nope. K&R1 was published in 1978. The ANSI standardisation process
>>for C began in 1983. K&R2 was published in 1988 and the first ANSI C
>>standard was published at the end of the following year.
>
> However, the 2nd and later printings of K&R2 postdate the C89 standard and
> were updated to actually describe it, rather than the draft the first
> printing was based on. To know which flavour of the book you have, simply
> look at its cover: it clearly states whether the book is covering the
> draft or the actual standard.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Note that the update was not 100% accurate, there are a few minor
> differences between the draft and C89 that haven't yet been fixed in
> the book.

Are these things that aren't in the errata either? If so, what are
they?

Jeremy.

(Dan Pop) writes:
> In <bmr7jh$pugo5$> Jeremy Yallop
> <> writes:
>
> >Nope. K&R1 was published in 1978. The ANSI standardisation process
> >for C began in 1983. K&R2 was published in 1988 and the first ANSI C
> >standard was published at the end of the following year.
>
> However, the 2nd and later printings of K&R2 postdate the C89 standard and
> were updated to actually describe it, rather than the draft the first
> printing was based on. To know which flavour of the book you have, simply
> look at its cover: it clearly states whether the book is covering the
> draft or the actual standard.
>
> Note that the update was not 100% accurate, there are a few minor
> differences between the draft and C89 that haven't yet been fixed in
> the book.

There's also an errata list at
<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/2ediffs.html>. I don't know
whether the published book plus the errata is 100% consistent with the
C89 (or C90) standard.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"

In <bn1kma$s5l1v$> Jeremy Yallop <> writes:

>Dan Pop wrote:
>
>> Note that the update was not 100% accurate, there are a few minor
>> differences between the draft and C89 that haven't yet been fixed in
>> the book.
>
>Are these things that aren't in the errata either? If so, what are
>they?

I suspect that, 14 years after the release of C89, all the bugs have been
reported to the authors and included in the errata. Unfortunately, they
have not been corrected in the more recent printings of the book.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: