Do we really need a CPP manual?

[Sandra Loosemore]

On 12/16/2016 08:45 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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.
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/
>
> 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.

This document also looks very bit-rotten:  "By default, GCC will compile 
code as C89 plus GNU-specific extensions. [...]"

TBH, I have no interest in rewriting/maintaining C language manuals or 
tutorials.  :-(  Given that there's resistance to removing the existing 
CPP tutorial material entirely, I'll try to come up with some other plan 
for leaving that part of the CPP manual as-is while addressing the 
bit-rot in the options, etc, probably involving more/better use of 
shared include files.

-Sandra