Do we really need a CPP manual?

[Jeff Law]

On 12/16/2016 11:01 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> 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.
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 :-)

jeff