NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part2/11813

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 1.7 KB

Path: anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Kazimir Kylheku)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: H&S4 errata?
Date: 26 Mar 1996 11:08:42 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca

In article <[e-mail]>, Steve Summit <[e-mail]> wrote:
 >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
 >(Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
 >> ...if you want a definitive reference on the C language, read the
 >> Standard. Failing that, the K&R2 (event this contains some well-known flaws,
 >> but is otherwise faithful). These are de-facto ``reference manuals'' for C.
 >
 >Different people have different needs.  The ANSI/ISO Standard is
 >hard to obtain and very hard to read.  K&R2 is a bit more
 >faithful to K&R1 and a bit less faithful to the Standard than
 >some readers might want.
 >
 >> There are too many other fledgling books out there about the C language;
 >> looking for errata for every book about C is basically a waste of time.
 >
 >Indeed.  However, H&S is anything but a "fledgling book."

True enough. It is highly recommended by the FAQ of this newsgroup as well.
It clearly belongs to the small set of books that should be emphasized as
complementing the standard in various ways, and therefore maintaining a list of
errata for _this_ particular book is anything but a waste of time.

I should have been careful to not sound like I'm specifically criticizing the
H&S, and I apologize.
--