Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > The C Containers Library

Reply
Thread Tools

The C Containers Library

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2012
To:
John Benito
Convener
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14
110 Shady Brook Court
Santa Cruz, CA 95065-9728
USA

From:

Jacob Navia
41 rue Maurice Ravel
93430 Villetaneuse
France

Villetaneuse, July 8th 2012

Dear Sir,

I would like to present the document:

"The C Containers Library"

to the committee for consideration for standardization.

This document has been discussed in the French C++ standardization
group of the AFNOR since there isn't a group for the C language
exclusively any more. C and C++ share the same group.

This document is available at the following address:

http://ccl.googlecode.com/files/ccl.pdf

I have setup a google project with the source code of the sample
implementation as described in the above document. Its address is:

http://code.google.com/p/ccl/

I have been working in this project approximately for three years and
the document is still far from perfect, but I consider that it now
gives a clear idea of the scope of this undertaking and about how can
it be implemented.

I presented the very first release of this project on June 24th 2010
to the comp.std.c and comp.lang.c discussions groups. I had started to
design and implement the library approximately a year before.

In the document you will find:

o An introduction that describes the layout, the motivations, and an
overview of what parts of the document are to be considered normative
specifications.
o Two introductory chapters explaining things informally.
o Two normative chapters (Auxiliary interfaces and the Containers)
o A description of the sample implementation with some commented code
excerpts.
o Applications and examples
o The "templated" form of the containers explained.

I have tried to keep the language of the specifications clear and
concise, but I have avoided trying to mimic "standardese" since I
believe that the explanations should be understood by all programmers
using the library without any artificial restrictions. As a model, I
used the language used in the "RFC"s of the interenet, specifications
that proved quite useful but are in plain language, understood by
everyone.

My goal in this first approach is to start a technical report (TR) that
could be further discussed within the community.

I thank you in advance for your attention. I remain available at any
time for any question you may have concerning this project.

Yours sincerely

Jacob Navia
Programmer
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
aftnix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Monday, July 9, 2012 1:53:07 AM UTC+6, jacob navia wrote:
> To:
> John Benito
> Convener
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14
> 110 Shady Brook Court
> Santa Cruz, CA 95065-9728
> USA
>
> From:
>
> Jacob Navia
> 41 rue Maurice Ravel
> 93430 Villetaneuse
> France
>
> Villetaneuse, July 8th 2012
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> I would like to present the document:
>
> "The C Containers Library"
>
> to the committee for consideration for standardization.
>
> This document has been discussed in the French C++ standardization
> group of the AFNOR since there isn't a group for the C language
> exclusively any more. C and C++ share the same group.
>
> This document is available at the following address:
>
> http://ccl.googlecode.com/files/ccl.pdf
>
> I have setup a google project with the source code of the sample
> implementation as described in the above document. Its address is:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/ccl/
>
> I have been working in this project approximately for three years and
> the document is still far from perfect, but I consider that it now
> gives a clear idea of the scope of this undertaking and about how can
> it be implemented.
>
> I presented the very first release of this project on June 24th 2010
> to the comp.std.c and comp.lang.c discussions groups. I had started to
> design and implement the library approximately a year before.
>
> In the document you will find:
>
> o An introduction that describes the layout, the motivations, and an
> overview of what parts of the document are to be considered normative
> specifications.
> o Two introductory chapters explaining things informally.
> o Two normative chapters (Auxiliary interfaces and the Containers)
> o A description of the sample implementation with some commented code
> excerpts.
> o Applications and examples
> o The "templated" form of the containers explained.
>
> I have tried to keep the language of the specifications clear and
> concise, but I have avoided trying to mimic "standardese" since I
> believe that the explanations should be understood by all programmers
> using the library without any artificial restrictions. As a model, I
> used the language used in the "RFC"s of the interenet, specifications
> that proved quite useful but are in plain language, understood by
> everyone.
>
> My goal in this first approach is to start a technical report (TR) that
> could be further discussed within the community.
>
> I thank you in advance for your attention. I remain available at any
> time for any question you may have concerning this project.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Jacob Navia
> Programmer


I actually don't understand the reason why you are posting it here?
A short post with "hey i have submitted ccl to ISO" would suffice.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
Le 26/07/12 22:13, aftnix a écrit :
> I actually don't understand the reason why you are posting it here?
> A short post with "hey i have submitted ccl to ISO" would suffice.


No, I think it wouldn't suffice.

I wanted that the people that follow this develoments know why I am
posting that now.

By the way the proposal was accepted for discussion in the next meeting
of the committee at Portland, October 22th to October 26th.

jacob
 
Reply With Quote
 
wkaras@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Sunday, July 8, 2012 3:53:07 PM UTC-4, jacob navia wrote:
> To:
> John Benito
> Convener
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14
> 110 Shady Brook Court
> Santa Cruz, CA 95065-9728
> USA
>
> From:
>
> Jacob Navia
> 41 rue Maurice Ravel
> 93430 Villetaneuse
> France
>
> Villetaneuse, July 8th 2012
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> I would like to present the document:
>
> "The C Containers Library"
>
> to the committee for consideration for standardization.
>
> This document has been discussed in the French C++ standardization
> group of the AFNOR since there isn't a group for the C language
> exclusively any more. C and C++ share the same group.
>
> This document is available at the following address:
>
> http://ccl.googlecode.com/files/ccl.pdf
>
> I have setup a google project with the source code of the sample
> implementation as described in the above document. Its address is:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/ccl/
>
> I have been working in this project approximately for three years and
> the document is still far from perfect, but I consider that it now
> gives a clear idea of the scope of this undertaking and about how can
> it be implemented.
>
> I presented the very first release of this project on June 24th 2010
> to the comp.std.c and comp.lang.c discussions groups. I had started to
> design and implement the library approximately a year before.
>
> In the document you will find:
>
> o An introduction that describes the layout, the motivations, and an
> overview of what parts of the document are to be considered normative
> specifications.
> o Two introductory chapters explaining things informally.
> o Two normative chapters (Auxiliary interfaces and the Containers)
> o A description of the sample implementation with some commented code
> excerpts.
> o Applications and examples
> o The "templated" form of the containers explained.
>
> I have tried to keep the language of the specifications clear and
> concise, but I have avoided trying to mimic "standardese" since I
> believe that the explanations should be understood by all programmers
> using the library without any artificial restrictions. As a model, I
> used the language used in the "RFC"s of the interenet, specifications
> that proved quite useful but are in plain language, understood by
> everyone.
>
> My goal in this first approach is to start a technical report (TR) that
> could be further discussed within the community.
>
> I thank you in advance for your attention. I remain available at any
> time for any question you may have concerning this project.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Jacob Navia
> Programmer


Although this clearly has value as it is, I think it would be an improvement if these non-intrusive containers were layered on top of intrusive containers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On 07/26/2012 04:13 PM, aftnix wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2012 1:53:07 AM UTC+6, jacob navia wrote:

....
>> I have tried to keep the language of the specifications clear and
>> concise, but I have avoided trying to mimic "standardese" since I
>> believe that the explanations should be understood by all programmers
>> using the library without any artificial restrictions. As a model, I
>> used the language used in the "RFC"s of the interenet, specifications
>> that proved quite useful but are in plain language, understood by
>> everyone.


That's somewhat counterproductive. Whether or not jacob wants it to be,
his proposal, if accepted, would have to be translated into standardese
for inclusion in the C standard. The goal of the standard is not to make
the explanations as easy to understand as possible - that's what text
books are for. The standard needs to have specifications sufficiently
precise to avoid ambiguity, even if that makes them harder to
understand. It must cover the corner cases, even if mentioning the
corner cases interferes with understanding what's supposed to happen in
the normal case.

The need to perform that translation will tend to discourage adoption of
the proposal, all else being equal. On the other hand, someone as
unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
try. If it is adopted, it would almost certainly need a significant
re-write anyway before it could be approved, even if it were written in
fluent standardese.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
Le 26/07/12 22:45, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) a écrit :

> Although this clearly has value as it is, I think it would be an improvement


if these non-intrusive containers were layered on top of intrusive
containers.
>


How can you maintain the inner structure of the container hidden in
intrusive containers?

Please explain

jacob
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
> On the other hand, someone as
> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
> try.


Can you please translate that into plain english?

Thanks

jacob


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Curry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
In article <jusat8$p3t$(E-Mail Removed)>,
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>> On the other hand, someone as
>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>> try.

>
>Can you please translate that into plain english?
>
>Thanks


ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
goes wrong.

James is saying that you aren't capable of writing in the legalistic
style of an ISO standard.

Just reading the stuff is tedious. Writing it must be even more so.

--
Alan Curry
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
Le 27/07/12 00:29, Alan Curry a écrit :
> In article <jusat8$p3t$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>>> On the other hand, someone as
>>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>>> try.

>>
>> Can you please translate that into plain english?
>>
>> Thanks

>
> ISO standards are written like legislation, not documentation. The
> target audience isn't programmers who want to use the language; it's
> lawyers who want to be able to officially place blame when something
> goes wrong.
>


Have you read the RFCs?

They are written in a language anybody can understand. And they have
less ambiguities than the C standard.

My point is that even if you write specifications in a lawyer friendly
language, they do not get better because of that. It is just that the
people that can understand what they mean are less numerous since
now you need to read standardese and correctly interpret it.


> James is saying that you aren't capable of writing in the legalistic
> style of an ISO standard.
>


I really do not know. For instance if you look at the normative parts of
the documentation they are in my opinion quite clear and they specify
correctly the APIs.

> Just reading the stuff is tedious. Writing it must be even more so.
>


I wanted a documentation that is easy to read and to understand by the
greatest amount of people, and at the same time it is clear, leaving
no ambiguous words. It is a tall order but I think I come close.

Anyway if I fdidn't think that I wouldn't have presented it to the
committee.

Thanks for your input.

jacob
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
Le 26/07/12 22:56, jacob navia a écrit :
> Le 26/07/12 22:52, James Kuyper a écrit :
>> On the other hand, someone as
>> unsympathetic as jacob is to the use of standardese is unlikely to
>> perform a good translation, so perhaps it is best if he doesn't even
>> try.


Sorry I misunderstood what you said.

I read:

>> On the other hand, someone as
>> unsympathetic as jacob


Then in my mind I added a comma here, so that sentence was separated
from the rest and thought you were treating me of "unsympathetic"

I am getting completely paranoid, actually now in a second reading I see
that you are referring to me as being unsympathetic to standardese
what is correct.

That is why I asked for a translation.

Well, now is clearer.


Sorry about this confusion.



 
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
Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers? Sebastian Mach C++ 5 10-06-2012 07:54 PM
C library containing implementations of associative containers. Morten C Programming 3 05-07-2008 02:24 PM
Containers of iterators vs. containers of references clark.coleman@att.net C++ 7 01-25-2008 01:37 PM
Library exposing STL containers Bob C++ 2 07-26-2006 02:04 AM
Questions about destructors on std library containers Ross Boylan C++ 12 02-13-2004 03:03 AM



Advertisments