FAQ update

[Catfish666]

Duoas wrote:

That is, what are the frequently asked questions you see about them?

The better question to ask is if a DS chapter is needed as a foundation for other things: like the Anything About Compression item for example.

[Duthomhas]

@long double main
Fixed. Thanks!

@BHX, LB
Okay, I'll add a lowdown on structures somewhere in Beginners...

@Luc
Thanks! Please do!

@Catfish666
This is really meant to be a relatively simple FAQ, not a book in its own right. For example, the "Anything About Compression" will be basically a bunch of links concomitant to learning more about compression.

[3hM2Nwbp]

@Duoas - I'm having second thoughts about providing links to "seemingly free" versions of the standard without first consulting with a lawyer. This site appears at the top of most searches, and will turn quite a few heads if we provide something that would cut profits feeding ISO.

What are your thoughts on this?

[G30GNwbp]

Here is the working draft that Stroustrup site references:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3242.pdf

see:
http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html

[JLBorges]

Download the January 2012 working draft (free). Except only for the final standards/reports, all C++ committee documents are freely publicly available, including all working drafts, many of which closely approximate the published standard. The January 2012 working draft contains the C++11 standard plus minor editorial changes. - http://isocpp.org/std/the-standard

The January 2012 working draft is the (spell checked and proof-read) C++11 standard.

Extend the scope indiscriminately, and this FAQ may eventually end up as a mere cut and paste job with material reproduced (though perhaps not verbatim) from other well-known places on the web. IMHO, a link to isocpp.org is all that is required as far as the standardization process goes.

[3hM2Nwbp]

@rtd2645

N3337 ( http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3337.pdf ) is closer to the publication date. From what I've learned from a few professional members here, it's the C++11 standard with a few minor grammatical improvements.

I'm having a tough time finding legal conditions for C++98 and C++03 in terms of which papers can be redistributed, however.

Still, I'd feel a bit safer if a legal professional (or ideally, someone from the C++ ISO committee) gave a green-flag.

[G30GNwbp]

@Luc Lieber

I don't think there is a problem since the site is not providing the draft only a link to the site that is providing the draft. If anyone needs to contact ISO it is open-std.org.

I personally have never had a reason to read the standard it is too technical for me and I expect that for anyone who doesn't know how to get a copy of the standard it would also be of little use. It is better to use the references provided by this site. Really besides compiler writers and people who like to argue who needs the standard? (This is not a rhetorical question if you have an answer)

[JLBorges]

> I don't think there is a problem since the site is not providing the draft only a link to the site that is providing the draft.

Yes. That is the important point; this site is not allowed to redistribute the draft.

The C++ committee has long made drafts available (whether on open-std.org, isocpp.org, or GitHub), allowing anyone to review drafts and provide feedback, as allowed by ISO's rules. ISO rules do not allow redistribution (whether at a cost or for free) of these documents by members of the public who do not participate in the standards committee.

The only documents that the C++ committee is not permitted to provide freely are the final published standards. - isocpp.org

> Really besides compiler writers and people who like to argue who needs the standard?

Perhaps also people who report bugs and request fixes (is this a bug?) to the compiler and library vendors.

Please note that the standard is not intended to teach how to use C++. Rather, it is an international treaty -- a formal, legal, and sometimes mind-numbingly detailed technical document intended primarily for people writing C++ compilers and standard library implementations.

Fortunately, there are lots of good books that do teach how to use C++! -isocpp.org

[3hM2Nwbp]

I personally have never had a reason to read the standard it is too technical for me and I expect that for anyone who doesn't know how to get a copy of the standard it would also be of little use. It is better to use the references provided by this site. Really besides compiler writers and people who like to argue who needs the standard? (This is not a rhetorical question if you have an answer)

The only reason that I brought up the standard in the first place was that the FAQ mentions standard draft versions (without links, or any inclination as to how or where to find them). It took me a few hours to track down a (legal?) draft version of C++98...and I'm an experienced googler. One other reason would be to pick out non-compliance in vendors' compilers (which some most users are oblivious to, including myself).

IE: Should this compile?

    int main()
    {
        // I'm feeling particularly evil today...\
        muahahahaha
    }

I don't think there is a problem since the site is not providing the draft only a link to the site that is providing the draft.

Much the same way as the pirate bay only provides links to people who own illegal copies of copyrighted material.

*So long as the files are hosted by the copyright holders, I don't think there are any moral concerns here though.

[Duthomhas]

After reading through this a couple of times... It all seemed somewhat familiar. Then I just remembered that I have already linked to JTC1/SC22/WG21 - The C++ Standards Committee page.

http://www.cplusplus.com/faq/intro/#not-proprietary

LOL.

Where would you like to see it in the FAQ to make finding it easier?