This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do we really need a CPP manual?
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:45:18 +0000
- Subject: Re: Do we really need a CPP manual?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <58538DBB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> Looking at the structure of the whole manual, though, I see that most of
> it is in fact a tutorial on how to use the preprocessor language, like
> you would find in a C programming book. Is this a useful thing for us
> to be providing? Offhand I am not sure how up-to-date this material is
> or how much of a maintenance burden it is, but it seems peculiar to be
> providing such extensive introductory material on the preprocessor when
> we don't do that for the C or C++ languages; we assume that people
> already know how to program.
There's a "GNU C Reference Manual" for the C language; I've no idea if
it's any good.
It says "Although normally described in a C language manual, the GNU C
preprocessor has been thoroughly documented in The C Preprocessor, a
separate manual which covers preprocessing for C, C++, and Objective-C
programs, so it is not included here.".
So that manual might be a plausible place for documentation of the
preprocessor language as a whole (having excluded such documentation on
the basis of it being covered in the CPP manual), although since it's
strictly a reference that doesn't answer what to do with tutorial content.
Joseph S. Myers