Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > boolean values and the FAQ

Reply
Thread Tools

boolean values and the FAQ

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
The section about boolean values should mention
<stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
(Section 9)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dan Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
In <cd5ihs$l8e$(E-Mail Removed)> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>The section about boolean values should mention
><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So is the C programming community at large.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004

"Dan Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:cd5tff$n4b$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In <cd5ihs$l8e$(E-Mail Removed)> "jacob navia"

<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >The section about boolean values should mention
> ><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> So is the C programming community at large.
>


So what?

The current standard is C99. Period.

The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.
I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
current standard should be mentioned.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Pop
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
In <cd600i$gn0$(E-Mail Removed)> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>"Dan Pop" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
>news:cd5tff$n4b$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In <cd5ihs$l8e$(E-Mail Removed)> "jacob navia"

><(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> >The section about boolean values should mention
>> ><stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> So is the C programming community at large.

>
>So what?


So this is what people writing C code care about. When the importance of
portable programming penetrates your thick skull, you'll understand why.

>The current standard is C99. Period.


So what?!? You're not posting to comp.std.c, are you?

>The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.


Sez who? The FAQ maintainer obviously thinks otherwise, as the [ISO]
tag means:

International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9899:1990
(see question 11.2). [ISO]

>I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
>current standard should be mentioned.


Who are you to decide what the FAQ *should* do? Start your own FAQ and
put whatever you want there. Then see if anyone else cares about it.
Your C tutorial has already been a tremendous success in c.l.c, hasn't it?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin Bracey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
In message <cd65f7$hrm$(E-Mail Removed)>
(E-Mail Removed) (Dan Pop) wrote:

> In <cd600i$gn0$(E-Mail Removed)> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >So what?

>
> So this is what people writing C code care about. When the importance of
> portable programming penetrates your thick skull, you'll understand why.
>
> >The current standard is C99. Period.

>
> So what?!? You're not posting to comp.std.c, are you?
>
> >The FAQ should mention the current version of the standard.

>
> Sez who? The FAQ maintainer obviously thinks otherwise, as the [ISO]
> tag means:
>
> International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9899:1990
> (see question 11.2). [ISO]
>
> >I am not advocating dropping all references to C89, but the
> >current standard should be mentioned.

>
> Who are you to decide what the FAQ *should* do? Start your own FAQ and
> put whatever you want there. Then see if anyone else cares about it.
> Your C tutorial has already been a tremendous success in c.l.c, hasn't it?


I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness; I
think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's trying
for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster? I personally find him far more
of an irritant than the mere incompetents and general trolls like ERT. At
least they're not vindictive, unpleasant sociopaths with far too much posting
time on their hands.

*PLONK*

--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1728 727430
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004

"Kevin Bracey" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <cd65f7$hrm$(E-Mail Removed)>
> (E-Mail Removed) (Dan Pop) wrote:

[snip]
>
> I think there must be some sort of annual cycle of Mr Pop unpleasantness;

I
> think I last killfiled him about the same time last year. Maybe he's

trying
> for the title of c.l.c's most annoying poster? I personally find him far

more
> of an irritant than the mere incompetents and general trolls like ERT. At
> least they're not vindictive, unpleasant sociopaths with far too much

posting
> time on their hands.
>
> *PLONK*


Well I surely agree with this description

I can't understand that the same people that strictly say that only
STANDARD C is on topic in this list now say that the C99 standard is
irrelevant. I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard
boolean interface header <stdbool.h> !!!

References:

ANSI/ISO C Standard 7.15 Boolean type and values <stdbool.h>


 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Robert Tisdale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
jacob navia wrote:

> The section about boolean values should mention
> <stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...


The C FAQ is obsolete.
It needs to be brought up-to-date.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Pfaff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
"jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> I just want that the FAQ *mentions* the standard boolean
> interface header <stdbool.h> !!!


There's nothing anybody but the FAQ maintainer can do about that.
Take it up with Steve Summit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Summit
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
jacob navia wrote:
>> The section about boolean values should mention
>> <stdbool.h> at least.


Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
> The C FAQ is obsolete.


I'm biased, of course, but I think that's a *little* strong.

> It needs to be brought up-to-date.


When's the last time you looked at the version posted here?

Steve Summit
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2004
"jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> The section about boolean values should mention
> <stdbool.h> at least. It is still at the C89 stage...
> (Section 9)


I agree. The C FAQ was updated just recently; the latest text
version, at <ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/s/scs/C-faq/faq.gz>, is less than
two weeks old (the HTML version hasn't been updated yet). It does
include material about the C99 standard; I'm a little surprised it
doesn't mention C99's new support for boolean types.

(Anyone who thinks the C FAQ *shouldn't* discuss C99 should probably
take it up with Steve Summit.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
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
Subtle difference between boolean value and boolean comparison? Metre Meter Javascript 7 08-06-2010 08:40 PM
difference between 'boolean' and 'java.lang.Boolean' J Leonard Java 4 01-19-2008 02:56 AM
Unable get Boolean and Numeric values from XLS into Dataset and Datagrid vighnesh ASP .Net 3 08-04-2005 02:16 PM
Unable get Boolean and Numeric values from XLS into Dataset and Datagrid vighnesh ASP .Net Datagrid Control 3 08-04-2005 02:16 PM
WMI and boolean values from Win32_Processor Daniel Berger Perl Misc 6 06-22-2004 03:01 PM



Advertisments