哪个C标准目前是C ++的权威？ [英] Which C Standard is currently definitive for C++?
问题描述
我想看看实际的C编程语言规范
，它提供了C ++在< c *>中使用的库。头。一对夫妇
天前，我发现它可以在互联网上免费获得。我最初
假设它是旧的或草稿版本。我很清楚我拥有的是什么是
相同的ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言？ C中引用的C
标准。我现在发现它可以在
互联网上的许多地方免费使用。它被取代了吗？整个C编程语言标准的分发是否在没有
成本的情况下合法分配？我打算购买最新版本，但我不确定这是什么，我也不确定哪一个正式适用于C ++。要阅读C ++
标准，并以面值（通常是一个危险的命题），我会
说我所拥有的是规范版本。
有人能告诉我C标准文件是哪一个正确用作最新C ++标准的
参考？
-
如果我们的假设是关于任何事情而不是关于某一个或多个特定事物，那么我们的推论就构成了数学。因此，数学可能被定义为我们永远不知道我们所讨论的是什么，以及我们所说的是否属实的主题.- Bertrand Russell
Steven T. Hatton写道：我想看看实际的C编程语言规范
提供C ++在< c *>中使用的库。头。几天前，我发现它可以在互联网上免费获得。
毫无疑问，违反了版权。
我最初认为它是较旧版本或草稿版本。我很确定我拥有的是相同的ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言？ C在C ++
标准中引用。
实际上，C ++标准是指ISO / IEC 9899：1990和ISO / IEC
9899：Amd.1：1995，而非1999年。
我现在发现它可以在
互联网上的许多地方免费使用。
" It" - 什么？
它被取代了吗？
" It" - 什么？
整个C编程语言标准的发行是否在没有成本的情况下合法分配？
不是AFAIK。
我打算买最新版本，但我不确定那是什么，我也不是确定哪一个正式适用于C ++。
获取C ++标准的版本，你就会知道。它们列在
第1.2节规范性参考文献中。
要阅读C ++
标准，并将其视为面值（通常是一个危险的命题）我会
说我所拥有的是规范性版本。
我不明白这句话。
有人能告诉我C标准文件是哪一个正确的用作
参考最新的C ++标准？
C ++标准应该告诉你。
V
Victor Bazarov写道：
Steven T. Hatton写道：我想看看实际的C编程语言
规范
提供了C ++在< c *>中使用的库。头。几天前，我发现它可以在互联网上免费获得。
毫无疑问，侵犯了版权。
嗯，我不打算对任何人打趣，但我看到的一些地方
可能会对这些事情小心。
>我原本认为这是一个较旧的或草稿版本。我很清楚我拥有的是相同的ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言？ C ++标准中引用的C.
实际上C ++标准是指ISO / IEC 9899：1990和ISO / IEC
9899：Amd.1：1995 ，而不是1999年。
我的陈述中出现的文字是直接从C ++
标准中复制的。但是，标准C库是为C ++定义的，它是您列出的文档中指定的一个
。
我'我现在发现它可以在免费上网的许多地方使用。
它 - 什么？
ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言 - C
>它被取代了吗？
它 - 什么？
ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言 - C
>整个C编程语言标准的分发是否在没有成本的情况下合法分配？
不是AFAIK。
>我打算购买最新版本，但我不确定那是什么，也不确定哪一个正式适用于C ++。
获取版本您会知道C ++标准版。它们列在第1.2节规范性参考文献中。
ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言 - C，我将假设不是
受到Cor的影响。 1：2001（E）和Cor。 2：2004（E）。而对于图书馆我
相信不包括TCOR1和TCOR2。
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards
>要阅读C ++
标准，并以表面价值（通常是一个危险的命题），我会说我所拥有的是规范版本。
我我不明白这句话。
我有ISO / IEC 9899：1999，编程语言 - C，但我现在意识到
这不是标准C库的规范版本。
任何人都可以告诉我C标准文档是正确的用作< />对最新C ++标准的引用？
C ++标准应该告诉你。
似乎我需要两个他们更糟糕的是，C ++标准声称
以下参考文档对于
本文档的应用是必不可少的。凡是注日期的引用文件，仅引用的版本适用。对于
未注明日期的参考文献，最新版本的参考文件
（包括任何修订）适用。
ISO / IEC 2382 （所有部分），信息技术？词汇
...."
这些部分中约有36个。每个成本最低
18US。我怀疑在ISO / IEC 14882：2003（E）中实际上很少依赖ISO / IEC 2382上的
。
- -
如果我们的假设是关于任何事情而不是关于某一个或多个特定事物，那么我们的推论就构成了数学。因此，数学可能被定义为我们永远不知道我们所讨论的是什么，以及我们所说的是否属实的主题.- Bertrand Russell
I wanted to take a look at the actual C Programming Language specification
which provides the libraries used by C++ in the <c*> Headers. A couple
days ago, I found it freely available on the internet. I originally
assumed it was an older, or draft version. I''m pretty sure what I have is
the same ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages ? C referenced in the C++
Standard. I''m now discovering that it is available in many places on the
internet for free. Has it been superceded? Is the distribution of the
entire C Programming Language Standard being legally distrubuted without
cost? I was going to buy the latest version, but I''m not sure what that
is, nor am I sure which one officially applies to C++. To read the C++
Standard, and take it at face value (often a dangerous proposition) I would
say what I have is the normative version.
Can anybody tell me what C Standard document is the correct one to use as a
reference to the latest C++ Standard?
--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell
Steven T. Hatton wrote:I wanted to take a look at the actual C Programming Language specification
which provides the libraries used by C++ in the <c*> Headers. A couple
days ago, I found it freely available on the internet.
A violation of the copyright, no doubt.
I originally
assumed it was an older, or draft version. I''m pretty sure what I have is
the same ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages ? C referenced in the C++
Standard.
Actually the C++ standard refers to ISO/IEC 9899:1990 and ISO/IEC
9899:Amd.1:1995, and not 1999.
I''m now discovering that it is available in many places on the
internet for free.
"It" -- what?
Has it been superceded?
"It" -- what?
Is the distribution of the
entire C Programming Language Standard being legally distrubuted without
cost?
Not AFAIK.
I was going to buy the latest version, but I''m not sure what that
is, nor am I sure which one officially applies to C++.
Get a version of the C++ Standard and you''ll know. They are listed in
section 1.2 Normative references.
To read the C++
Standard, and take it at face value (often a dangerous proposition) I would
say what I have is the normative version.
I don''t understand this statement.
Can anybody tell me what C Standard document is the correct one to use as a
reference to the latest C++ Standard?
The C++ Standard should tell you that.
V
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Steven T. Hatton wrote:I wanted to take a look at the actual C Programming Language
specification
which provides the libraries used by C++ in the <c*> Headers. A couple
days ago, I found it freely available on the internet.
A violation of the copyright, no doubt.
Well, I''m not going to snitch on anybody, but some of the places I saw it
would probably be careful about such things.
> I originally
assumed it was an older, or draft version. I''m pretty sure what I have
is the same ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages ? C referenced in
the C++ Standard.
Actually the C++ standard refers to ISO/IEC 9899:1990 and ISO/IEC
9899:Amd.1:1995, and not 1999.
The text appearing in my statement was copied directly from the C++
Standard. The Standard C Library, however is defined for C++ as the one
specified in the documents you listed.
I''m now discovering that it is available in many places on the
internet for free.
"It" -- what?
ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages - C
> Has it been superceded?
"It" -- what?
ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages - C
> Is the distribution of the
entire C Programming Language Standard being legally distrubuted without
cost?
Not AFAIK.> I was going to buy the latest version, but I''m not sure what that
is, nor am I sure which one officially applies to C++.
Get a version of the C++ Standard and you''ll know. They are listed in
section 1.2 Normative references.
ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages - C, and I will assume that is not
impacted by the Cor. 1:2001(E) and Cor. 2:2004(E). And for the library I
believe that would not include TCOR1 nor TCOR2.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards
> To read the C++
Standard, and take it at face value (often a dangerous proposition) I
would say what I have is the normative version.
I don''t understand this statement.
I have ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Programming languages - C, but I now realize that
this is not the normative version for the Standard C Library.
Can anybody tell me what C Standard document is the correct one to use as
a reference to the latest C++ Standard?
The C++ Standard should tell you that.
Seems I need two of them. And what is worse, the C++ Standard claims that
"The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of
this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document
(including any amendments) applies.
ISO/IEC 2382 (all parts), Information technology ? Vocabulary
...."
There are about 36 of these "parts" each costing a minimum of
18US. I
suspect there is actually very little in ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) that relies
on ISO/IEC 2382.
--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell
这篇关于哪个C标准目前是C ++的权威？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
