Re: Difference between "library parts" of C99 and "language parts" of C99



albert.neu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello!

What is the difference between "library parts" of C99 and "language
parts" of C99.

The language includes the libraries; perhaps you mean the syntax as opposed to the libraries. Basically, anything supplied as a function or macro will be found declared in a header and any supporting functions will be found in a library.

see
http://groups.google.at/group/microsoft.public.vc.language/browse_thread/thread/e9a67f0ff20a954b/bd2bada2bbdbce56?lnk=st&rnum=1#bd2bada2bbdbce56

Plauger uses the terms "library bits" and "language bits", not "library parts" and "language parts." He is writing informally; none of those four terms has any defined meaning in C, although most users of C will recognize that he is distinguishing between those parts of the language specified in section 7 "Library" of the language standard from the non-library parts defined in sections 1-6. The annexes A-J contain supplemental information concerning all 7 sections of the language specification.

I know that "Dinkum Compleat Libraries" (http://www.dinkumware.com/)
support the "library parts" of C99 - this probably relates to the C99
library headers and the functionality they provide.?

The headers and library functions defined by the C language specification are what Dinkum supplies.


Are the "language parts" of C99 perhaps things like "variable
declarations" in the middle of {}-blocks? See below...

No doubt Plauger means by "language bits" everything not specified as belonging in a library or associated header. Obviously, variables and their declarations (no matter where they occur) are part of that.


/******** test.c *********/
#include <stdio.h>

int main( void )
{
printf("hello world\n");

char c = 5; //variable declaration
return 0;
}

What else might be included in the "language parts" of C99?

In your code, <stdio.h> and printf() are defined as part of the library in the language specification. Everything else is a non-library part of the C programming language.
.



Relevant Pages

  • [LONG] Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed
    ... > the programmer who wants such features. ... the guiding principles in the evolution of the c++ language should be ... the problem with this is that ide must first be able to assume ... libraries to find the type declaration. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: So confused with scheme options
    ... Well known Libraries ... Implementation Extensions ... language, what's an expected library function for most implementations, ... This is the "module" language of PLT, ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: Verbose functional languages?
    ... believe it will be difficult to surpass the practical success of OCaml ... are writing good libraries for it). ... because the language was pushed with marketing money. ... Existing FPL implementations like OCaml and Haskell bask in the glory ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: So confused with scheme options
    ... tower of libraries and procedures. ... language, what's an expected library function for most implementations, ... extension of blah or whatever. ... This is the "module" language of PLT, ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: Why why why? (Was: Re: Vertical alignment of text within a DIV)
    ... but a full rendering implementation for every possible display ... Remember that back when these standards were written ... there was very little in terms of cross-platform display libraries. ... It's the 'any language' bit, ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)