Re: Do we really need a CPP manual?

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

On 12/16/2016 07:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:

> That's likely the manual RMS kept asking folks (semi-privately) to
> review.  My response was consistently that such review should happen
> publicly, which RMS opposed for reasons I don't recall.
>
> I don't see that manual as part of the GCC project and I certainly would
> understand a disinterest in reviewing/rewriting C language manuals and
> tutorials :-)

More language and related standards under free licenses could be a 
worthwhile goal, though.  I have no idea how tiresome this would be, and 
home much ideological objections to free licenses remain.

(I once tried to learn C from GCC Texinfo printouts, and it took me a 
while to figure out that GCC did not come with documentation for the 
languages it implemented.)

Thanks,
Florian