Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C11 reference book

Reply
Thread Tools

C11 reference book

 
 
Ioannis Vranos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2012
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ralph Spitzner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2012
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



-rasp
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jorgen Grahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2012
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 .
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorgen Grahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2012
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 .
 
Reply With Quote
 
Quentin Pope
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-04-2012
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2012
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.
 
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
Reasonably priced C11 now available lawrence.jones@siemens.com C Programming 4 05-31-2012 01:48 PM
Queries about new C paper work C11 lovecreatesbeauty C Programming 3 05-20-2012 10:18 PM
Reasonably priced C11 standard? Keith Thompson C Programming 85 04-06-2012 07:46 PM
Has Implicit Int been disabled in the new C11 standard? What aboutother previously depreciated constructions eg gets? Lord Voldermort C Programming 20 03-01-2012 10:57 AM
Comparing C11 compilers Quentin Pope C Programming 3 02-06-2012 09:36 PM



Advertisments