Some time ago there was an argument over K&R which was regarded as rather
out of date and didn't include Ansi C. Another book was mentioned with the
abbreviation M&B. If I'm wrong I humbly apologise. If not what did M&B
stand for?

On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:52:53 +0100 in comp.arch.embedded, "Fred"
<fred@nowhere.com> wrote:

Don't know if you're right or wrong. Never heard of M&B.

But the best up-to-date C reference manual is H&S, for Harbison and
Steele's "C: A Reference Manual", now in its fifth edition, and
encompassing everything from pre-standard "traditional" C through C99.

Regards,
-=Dave

--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

Fred <fred@nowhere.com> wrote:
That part of the argument was based on way outdated information.
There are two editions of K&R. The second, which really should be the
only one you can even find any more these days, does cover ANSI C. It
doesn't cover post-ANSI additions to the standard, though --- but
those were done by ISO/IEC, not ANSI.

--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

Steele over K&R -- mostly because Harbison & Steele is a better
_reference_ manual for when you need to remind yourself of just one
tidbit. K&R is written in a much more tutorial style which means you
have to read more of it to get that one part you _really_ needed. H&S
is also, IMHO, better at helping you to write really portable code.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
As long as you avoid Herbert Schildt (the L could well be silent) you
can't go too far wrong with K&R and H&S.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "That is enigmatic. That is textbook enigmatic..." - Dr Who
"There's no room for engimas in built-up areas." - N Blackwell

Op Mon, 15 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700 schreef Tim Wescott:

The second edition came out in 1988. Where have you been ?
--
Coos

On Mon, 15 May 2006 10:05:44 -0500, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I hate "me too" postings but another "vote" for Harbison & Steele can't
hurt. It's the one to get if you only get one.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Coos Haak wrote:
Off using Harbison and Steele for all my C reference needs.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Posting from Google? See http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/

"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" came out in April.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Pete Fenelon wrote:
What's an engima?

H+S is good. What's the equiv for C++? I have a number of C++
books, but I couldn't say any of them compare to H+S.

Fred wrote:

Mills & Boon?

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, <http://www.vl.com.au>
21-25 King St, Rockdale, 2216
Ph: +612-9599-3255 Fax: +612-9599-3266

Clifford Heath wrote:
That's the mother of all engines.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

curious, what's wrong with Herbert Schildt?

"Mark McDougall" <markm@vl.com.au> wrote in message
news:4469773b$0$26932$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Don't think I'd get much joy with one of those!

Seriously - many thanks for all the posts. Greatly appreciated.

Rob wrote:
His books are a synonym for misinformation. Some function
adequately as kindling.

In this particular case it doesn't matter too much, but in general
on usenet you should realize that readers may very well not have
convenient access to previous articles in a thread. That means
that your reply articles should include adequate context, so that
they stand by themselves. Google is NOT usenet, it is only a very
poor interface to the real usenet system. To include proper
context when using google, see my sig. below. Please be sure to
read the referenced URLs.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

CBFalconer wrote:

I think you're suffering from seasonal allegories.

CBFalconer wrote:
You'll be pleased to see that I have read your opinions on google
groups. Don't be too harsh on google groups, for some people it can be
the only method for accessing usenet. As in my example, my ability at
work to access newsgroups disappeared down the toilet a few years ago.
It's something to do with our ISP account and I have no control over
it. Up until that point I was a very happy mozilla/thunderbird user.

With regards to Herbert Schildt's books being "a synonym for
misinformation", do you have any examples? I have a chiminea at home
that could make use of a possibly redundant complete reference to C
(4th edition) that I have at work.

On 16 May 2006 03:55:18 -0700, "Rob" <mr_horton@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Windows 95 is a mouse based operating system" (Quoting from memory,
I'll try to find the actual text when I get home.)

See the ACCU book reviews at
http://brian.accu.org/bookreviews/pu...iews/0au/s.htm

Rob <mr_horton@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nothing, probably, except that he never should have been allowed to
write books about stuff he clearly doesn't have a clue about.

--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

In article <446895c3$0$212$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Fred
<fred@nowhere.com> writes
K&R2 was basically ANSI C (C89) since then there have been 2 and a half
versions of ISO C ending with C99 + TC's

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <1147776918.780844.41070@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, Rob
<mr_horton@yahoo.com> writes
I don't see how that is.

Then change ISP to a decent one. There are more than enough out there.


I had a fellow member of the ISO C panel who for a party piece would
take HS's Annotated C reference book. Explain that the standard was on
the even numbered pages and HS's comments were on the odd numbered
pages. He would then ask the audience to call out odd numbers at random.
He would turn to that page and find at least one error in the authors
work.

There are several on line pages of examples of the errors in HS's books
None has been challenged by the author. Neither has he AFAIK threatened
any one with legal action over the comments in print.

Just search on the name and the book title I am sure you will find many
examples of why not to buy.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/