From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX Date: 1996/04/19 Message-ID: <4l9eqf$eh8@solutions.solon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 150421823 references: <4l2rvoINN7os@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <01bb2dd1.53b4e740$c6c2b7c7@Zany.localhost> organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover) reply-to: seebs@solon.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bb2dd1.53b4e740$c6c2b7c7@Zany.localhost>, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >You can get 9899 for 30 bucks at a bookstore. Herbert Schildt wrote an >annotated version, much more readable than the standard alone. And $30 is >cheap for computer books. "More readable than the standard alone"? Bullshit. In the plain standard, all the text is on both pages. In the "annotated" one, the standard text is on one page, and the facing page contains lies, bullshit, and hypotheses, disguised as annotations. The annotated one used to be missing a page, although this may be fixed, has a moderately crucial "." missing from the specification of floating point numbers, does not have any updates from the technical corrigendum or normative addendum... And, of course, remember that the annotations are *hopelessly* wrong, on a consistent and regular basis. This is possibly one of the most useless, if not downright *dangerous*, things you can do; it's horrible. I personally think McGraw-Hill should lose their license to reproduce the standard; I've corresponded with them about errors in their books, and they've chosen to take the path of "No author who has sold this many books could possibly be wrong that often." If you doubt that the man is fundementally and basically unqualified to be writing a book on C, just remember that in the 2nd edition of _C: The Complete Reference_, we see "<>" used as an inequality operator. (Page 53.) In the third edition, it's fixed - but the other mistakes on the same page aren't. (There's at least 3; look 'em up if you have the book, and if you can't find them, worry.) >And I'm sure your suggestion has already been done. Nope. At least, if it has, I've never seen it. -s -- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach. C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really! Unsolicited email is not welcome, and will be billed for at consulting rates. The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html