Craig Franck writes: >There was a post in which it was stated the most Ada programmers had >the language definition handy while most C programmers did not, and >C programmers where more likely to confuse the compiler docs with the >standard. May I point out the obvious reason why this is true? Ada programmers keep the LRM handy because they *can*; the Ada standard is available *free* over the net. So is the superb Ada Qulity and Style Guidelines. No version of the C standard is, has been, or foreseeably will be. I am one of several people who have argued in comp.std.c that the C9x standard, or at least the public review drafts, _should_ be available free. I cannot imagine any good C++ programmer who wouldn't want to have the current draft of the C++ standard handy, and that _is_ available over the net. >It is this elitest mentality that may put some people off; What's "elitist" about using the freely available documents? Is there any good programmer for _any_ language who wouldn't gladly keep the relevant standards available if s/he could afford them? The HTML standard is freely available, so good HTML authors use it. That's not elitist, that's just sense. -- John �neas Byron O'Keefe; 1921/02/04-1997/09/27; TLG,TLTA,BBTNOTL. Richard A. O'Keefe; RMIT Comp.Sci; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok