Standard C etc.?
jg.campbell.ng_at_gmail.com
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: Francis Glassborow: "Re: overloading operator<<"
- Previous message: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: MinGW"
- Next in thread: Wolfgang Kaufmann: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Reply: Wolfgang Kaufmann: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Reply: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Mar 2005 02:50:49 -0800
I'm coming back to C after a significant absence. This is to teach a
course on OpenGL; I would like to wrap everything in C++ classes, but I
don't think I have the time. And the better textbooks use plain C.
Where possible I use GNU C; maybe via MinGW on a Windows machine.
Previously, I used gcc as:
gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
and insisted that students do the same, i.e. I refuse to help in
debugging unless these switches are used.
For learning, is that still optimal?
I see that 'gcc' alone will now permit // comments. Are // comments
part of any C standard?
Maybe the question could be rephrased as: what are the significant
changes since Summit's C Programming FAQs book (1996)?
TIA,
Jon C.
- Next message: Francis Glassborow: "Re: overloading operator<<"
- Previous message: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: MinGW"
- Next in thread: Wolfgang Kaufmann: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Reply: Wolfgang Kaufmann: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Reply: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: Standard C etc.?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]