Re: Other issues with the FAQ

From: Keith Thompson (kst-u_at_mib.org)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:33:28 GMT

Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
> In <cd5r4d$t8i$1@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr> "jacob navia"
> <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> >1: The section about "main" doesn't mention that
> > main has an automatic zero return value.
>
> Most likely because it doesn't:
>
> fangorn:~/tmp 485> cat test.c
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main()
> {
> printf("Hello world\n");
> }
> fangorn:~/tmp 486> gcc -ansi -pedantic test.c
> fangorn:~/tmp 487> ./a.out
> Hello world
> fangorn:~/tmp 488> echo $status
> 12

Dan, you know as well as anyone that the behavior of a single
implementation does not definitively address questions about the
standard. Only the standard itself does that.

It's true that the C90 standard doesn't define an automatic zero
return value for main, though the C99 standard does. If you want to
make that point, make it.

> > I do not agree with this part of the standard but
> > it should be mentioned in the FAQ anyway.
> > Question 11.12b
>
> Read this until it penetrates your thick skull: it is the c.l.c FAQ,
> NOT the C99 FAQ.

The latest version mentions C99 extensively. There are still several
places where C99 features are relevant and the FAQ doesn't yet mention
them.

[...]

> >3: The question about rounding (14.6) doesn't mention the
> > standard functions lround, round, and the others defined
> > in the standard.
>
> Most likely because the standard doesn't define them:
[demonstration of gcc behavior snipped]

The C90 standard doesn't mention them. The C99 standard does. You
know that, of course, but you choose to make your point by showing how
gcc behaves rather than by coming out and saying it.

[...]

(I've skipped the Windows and MSDOS questions because I have no
significant expertise in that area.)

> BTW, if you have (finally) read the FAQ, why don't you follow its advice?
>
> This article can always be improved. Your input is welcome. Send your
> comments to scs@eskimo.com .
>
> There is exactly one person who decides what goes and what doesn't in the
> FAQ. Ditto for what needs to be changed in the FAQ. It is enough to
> convince him, you don't need our consensus. OTOH, our consensus is
> worth zilch if you don't manage to convince him. Would you change lcc
> in a manner you don't approve of simply because c.l.c has unanimously
> told you to do so? Why would be Steve any different?

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss the content of the comp.lang.c
FAQ in comp.lang.c. Steve follows the group (at least he's been doing
so lately), and I suspect he's influenced by any reasonable points
that are made here.

Just today, in the "boolean values and the FAQ" thread, Steve wrote:
] jacob navia wrote:
] >> The section about boolean values should mention
] >> <stdbool.h> at least.
]
] Indeed it should. I'll make a note. Thanks.

I understand that you probably didn't have a chance to see that
article before you posted, but if Steve doesn't have a problem
accepting feedback from the newsgroup, perhaps you shouldn't worry
about it.

If you want a FAQ that ignores the C99 standard, feel free to write
one. I'd probably even read it and give you feedback on it.

Assuming I have Steve's attention (if I don't, I'll send him an e-mail
message later), I have a couple of questions that are probably of
interest to the readers of this newsgroup:

When will the HTML version be updated to match the latest plain-text
version? If the conversion isn't automated, I'm sure someone would be
glad to volunteer to help make it so.

What's the story on the Korean translation we discussed here a few
weeks ago? There was some concern that it seems to include material
that's in the book but not in the English on-line version. (Steve
told me by e-mail that there's no real problem, but he didn't have
time to elaborate.) 

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Other issues with the FAQ
    ... Only the standard itself does that. ... though the C99 standard does. ... >> NOT the C99 FAQ. ... Why would be Steve any different? ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Other issues with the FAQ
    ... > shows no signs of intending to change the FAQ in this direction. ... > for anyone interested in portable C programming, ... As a group, we discuss "standard" C, and are quick to point out the ... C99. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • RE: Automating Import process...
    ... Create a new standard module.... ... On Error GoTo R5561115Import_Err ... 'Open the OpenFile Dialog box to get the .csv filename ... "Steve Sanford" wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.access.modulesdaovba)
  • Re: Confirmation Email
    ... Steve ... > If your host supports e-mail auto responders you can do the following: ... > e-mails with a standard 'Thank you' reply (or whatever it is you want to ... > 3 Set up the FrontPage Form Properties to send to the new e-mail address ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: help
    ... I would be mildly surprised if the instructor did not expect the OP to use a delay/sleep/wait type function provided by the implementation rather than a loop, so I would consider Richard's suggestion to be more helpful. ... I had hoped that the bad old days of teaching a computer language along with a mish-mash of vendor specific extensions was behind us. ... If I was the instructor then maximum points would be for using a system specific solution and providing a good reason why a system specific solution should be used and also say what the solution using standard C is. ... Of course, if the answer is in the FAQ then the question should not be asked because the FAQ should be checked first, but that is dealt with by pointing them at the FAQ so they know to check next time. ...
    (comp.lang.c)