As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
toe back into C for a specific project.

During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
experience in.

I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
Linux.

I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
results.

I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
compiler is installed and works fine.

So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.

How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
libs?

For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
to *find* these types of libraries?


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

brundlefly76 wrote:

> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

If you know just enough C++ to select distinct keywords, you can use Google
for all the intermediate and advanced stuff.

However, the 'man' for C++ is at your local bookstore.

Perl hides the lowest-level details, such as your memory system. C++
requires you to remain aware what points to what. You cannot write a C++
program based on 'apropos' and 'man'. Crack a book.

> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
>
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

Nobody can contribute C++ to a single repository, because C++ has no common
package management system. CPAN depends on absolutely everything using
Makefile.PL properly. C++ has no equivalent, because C++ programs have
greater freedom to abuse your CPU.

> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

www.google.com and http://groups.google.com

thence www.boost.org , http://sf.net , and thousands of different code
sample and repository sites.

-- 
  Phlip
  http://industrialxp.org/community/bin/view/Main/TestFirstUserInterfaces

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

The standard C++ compiler in GNU/Linux systems is g++, which is part of
the Gnu Compiler Collection (http://gcc.gnu.org/). The man page is "man
gcc", more complete docs are in the Info system: "info gcc".

> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

Google :-)

-- 
 Markku Kolkka
 markku.kolkka@iki.fi

"brundlefly76@hotmail.com" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> writes:

>I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
>with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
>results.
'man for' isn't useful either. 

>So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
>C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.
I think html pages are more useful. Some may well be on your system.


>Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
>on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.

>How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
>libs?
http://www.boost.org/ is a good place to start. See also the FAQ
   http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/class-libraries.html

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

Hi,

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:

> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.
> 
> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
> 
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

Yes, the C++ documentation does not usually follow what is considered to 
be a "Unix tradition". I've never seen man pages for C++ standard library.
Taking into account that "man printf" works fine (OK, "man 3 printf"), I 
agree that the lack of "man cout" can be irritating.

Try these pages:

http://www.roguewave.com/support/docs/SourcePro/stdlibref/
http://www.cppreference.com/
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/

> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

I've found this index to be quite comprehensive:

http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/cpplibs.phtml


-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

In comp.os.linux.misc brundlefly76@hotmail.com <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.

There is no reason it should - that's part of C++.

> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.

Good.

> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

There is a man page for the compiler.  If you want to know how to
program in C++, you have to buy a book (as for any language) or some
other dcumentation.

> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so

I don't realise. Libraries will have their man pages.

> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.

"just"?!

> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

Libraries, once compiled, are not (particularly) specific to a
programming language.  The linker links with their exported symbols, not
to the language they are written in.  All you need to know is the
calling convention (;)>. And maybe sme declarations.

> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long.

Then you can do it just fine with getopt_long in C++.

> I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go

I presume so too. Google.

> to *find* these types of libraries?

"the universe".

Peter

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

("brundlefly76@hotmail.com" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com>) scribbled:

> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

.... info gcc, info g++

> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

.... probably best to visit the bookstore for
a reference on this. as you know, too, you
can use C functions using c++

-- 
<< http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com (L7 - Stick to the Plan) >>
All who joy would win Must share it --
Happiness was born a twin. - Lord Byron

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

[ps: I removed the cross-posts to a couple of other newsgroups]
brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:
> As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
> toe back into C for a specific project.
> 
> During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
> experience in.
> 
> I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
> Linux.
> 
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.
> 
> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
> 
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.
> 
> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
> 
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?
> 
> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

Google is your friend for "plain" C++,
e.g.: http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/

For nearly anything, C++ or otherwise, on a linux box, the usual
places are:

	man pages
	info pages
	/usr/share/doc/, /usr/local/share/doc/
	sometimes: /usr/[local/]lib/yourpackage/...

In many cases, the docs are installed in all three places, in different
formats [eg: a man page that refers to info].

In RPM-based linux distros, you'll often find library.rpm,
library-devel.rpm, and library-doc.rpm, as separate packages.  So, make
sure you got the doc rpm installed.  The command "rpm -ql package" will
show where the files went.

When I build from source, I usually explore the build directory, and
often find that I can build and install more docs that the plain
'make install' gives me; in some cases this is a simple as another
make target, in others it is a simple manual procedure (e.g.: find
Doxyfile, run doxygen, become root and install the output in some
shared location).
-- 
A. Kanawati
NO.antounk.SPAM@comcast.net

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:
> As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
> toe back into C for a specific project.
> 
> During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
> experience in.
> 
> I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
> Linux.
> 
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.

Try 'man Namespace_std' (I happen to know this is the correct manual
page, but I don't know whether you will have it).

> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
> 
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

The C++ library for g++ has inline documentation in the code which can
be extracted and processed by doxygen into various forms, including
manual pages.  Not all Linux distributors necessarily build and
distribute these.

There is a separate documentation page for each function, function
template, class, class template and namespace.  Static objects, type
aliases and enumerations are documented on the manual pages of their
containing scopes.  Note that the manual page names include
namespace qualification ('std::' prefix for almost everything in
the standard libary).

> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
> 
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

There is no single site acknowledged as *the* place to find open
source C++ libraries.  The Open Directory may be of help:
<http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/C++/Class_Libraries/>.
I would tend to look first in Boost, as the Boost libraries are
generally acknowledged to be of a high standard and they work well
with the standard library and are portable.

> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

Boost.Program_options does this (and more if you want it).

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Having problems with C++ templates?  Your questions may be answered by
<http://womble.decadentplace.org.uk/c++/template-faq.html>.

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

C++ has a fairly different culture than Perl. Part of this is that
there is not just one implementation of C++ which results in some
difference. You already stubmbled of the fact that not all C++
implementations come with man pages. I haven't checked recently
but I seem to remember that I have seen info(1) pages shipping for
parts of the C++ library with gcc. Other compilers, e.g. SUN's
actually have man pages. The primary source of information in C++
are books.

> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and
so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.

Yes, and having just one implementation of Perl makes it viable to
more less automatically access them. For C++ you would probably
visit Boost (<http://www.boost.org/>) for some form of open and
free library but it does not include all C++ libraries. Due to a
rather wide range of different programming styles, it is unclear
whether just one library archive is really viable.
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
<http://www.contendix.com> - Software Development & Consulting


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

"brundlefly76@hotmail.com" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> writes:

> As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
> toe back into C for a specific project.
>
> During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
> experience in.
>
> I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
> Linux.
>
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.

Just get yourself a some good books - say, Langer & Kreft for
     iostreams, and Austern for the STL, and a copy of the ISO C++ 2003
     standard.

The gnu libstdc++ docs are here:
     http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/documentation.html . THe
     most useful part of that is probably:
  http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/libstdc++-html-USERS-3.4/modules.html

There are man pages for all this in a tarball at
     ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/libstdc++/doxygen/ .
     Just untar it whereever you want, add that dir to your man path,
     and presto, man pages. Start with 'man C++Intro' . But there's no
     man page for cout. IIRC, the philosophy behind the libstdc++ docs
     is that the ISO C++ standard should be the documentation, and the
     libstdc++ docs should document only what the standard does
     not.

And sgi's docs (which g++ users have relied on forever) are here:
     http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/

But I have a hard time seeing how someone unfamiliar with what's in
     good C++ texts could make much use of that documentation. You
     aren't likely to get anywhere in C++ unless you spend a few
     hundred dollars on books, and (much more importantly) a few
     hundred hours studying those books, and applying the lessons in
     them.

>
> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
>
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.

See above. I don't know if any linux distros provide them
     pre-packaged.
>
> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
>
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?

boost.org is the closest thing c++ has to CPAN. But in all honesty, I
     don't think any other language has anything quite as nice as
     CPAN. (Nor does any other langauge have man pages as nice as
     Perl's or C's.)

>
> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

boost.org - specifically, http://boost.org/doc/html/program_options.html


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:

> As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
> toe back into C for a specific project.
> 
> During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
> experience in.
> 
> I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
> Linux.
> 
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.
> 
> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
> 
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.
> 
> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
> 
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?
> 
> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?


You may check this page:

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/learningcpp.htm



-- 
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:

> In comp.os.linux.misc brundlefly76@hotmail.com <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> > with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> > results.
> 
> There is no reason it should - that's part of C++.

Nonsense. 'fopen' is part of C, and yet, on any unix or linux system
    I've used, 'man fopen' results in useful information.

'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
    even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
    reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

mjt wrote:
> ("brundlefly76@hotmail.com" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com>) scribbled:

> ... probably best to visit the bookstore for
> a reference on this. as you know, too, you
> can use C functions using c++

I'll throw in a plug here for Herb Shildt's "C++: The Complete
Reference" ... It taught me the language.  It reads more like a
reference manual than a textbook, so if you've already got a background
in programming, it's fairly convenient.

ISBN: 0072226803


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

Mike Mol wrote:

> I'll throw in a plug here for Herb Shildt's "C++: The Complete
> Reference" ... It taught me the language.  It reads more like a
> reference manual than a textbook, so if you've already got a background
> in programming, it's fairly convenient.
>
> ISBN: 0072226803


http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/0sb/index.htm


You may check about his books.



-- 
Ioannis Vranos

http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

In article <1110134284.077398.283380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Mike 
Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> writes
>I'll throw in a plug here for Herb Shildt's "C++: The Complete
>Reference" ... It taught me the language.  It reads more like a
>reference manual than a textbook, so if you've already got a background
>in programming, it's fairly convenient.

Not if you want technically correct information. He is wrong or confused 
often enough so that no experienced C++ user would want to trust it.


For library details stick with The Standard C++ Library by Nico 
Josuttis. If you want details of the language itself look them up in 
'The C++ Programming Language' by Bjarne Stroustrup. No serious C++ 
programmer should be without those two books.


-- 
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
Author of 'You Can Do It!' see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit
For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Llewelly <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com> writes:

> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc brundlefly76@hotmail.com <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
>> > with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
>> > results.
>> 
>> There is no reason it should - that's part of C++.
>
> Nonsense. 'fopen' is part of C, and yet, on any unix or linux system
>     I've used, 'man fopen' results in useful information.
>
> 'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
>     even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
>     reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.

Since libstdc++ is documented with Doxygen, it could be made to spit
out troff rather than HTML (there's an option to enable it), but the
man pages are rather verbose and, unlike manpages, do not have related
functions/symbols grouped on a single page.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCLMSHVcFcaSW/uEgRAuFiAJ4+r8p4NZSN8vdx8EPN8XMyRGAqOQCgml02
XeXp7pdTFxUnuUWg61b84Uk=
=8CLX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

In comp.os.linux.misc Llewelly <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com> wrote:
> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> 
> > In comp.os.linux.misc brundlefly76@hotmail.com <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> > > with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> > > results.
> > 
> > There is no reason it should - that's part of C++.
> 
> Nonsense. 'fopen' is part of C, and yet, on any unix or linux system
>     I've used, 'man fopen' results in useful information.

Well, there happens traditionally to be a chapter of the man pages
devoted to C library calls. Hey, two chapters. Maybe more. Unix is
written in C, after all, and extending it (writting applications and
system softare) required some documentation and it came with the system
as the man pages. 

But ...  there is no chapter for pascal library calls (are there any?).
Nor java calls.  Nor ML library calls, nor ...  well, I don't know if
APL _could_ ever have a library :).

So I don't see why you think that an "arbitrary" language should come
with a chapter of the manpages all writetn out, one page per standard
language library call. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps yu think C++ is
anything but arbitrary, and that it deserves its place at the center of
the pantheon of languages!

As it happens, some languages do have manpages per call (perl springs
to mind, as does tk/tcl, but I always jetison that mess. They have to
be joking).

> 'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
>     even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
>     reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.

But C++ has nothing intrinsically to do with unix in the way that C does.
It runs fine on VMS, and even msdos.  Ditto pascal.  Ditto java.  That
unix is written in C explains why the C library calls came initially
documented with the unix system.  Nothing more should be expected.

>       [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
>       [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

Peter

ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Llewelly <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com> wrote:
>> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
>> 
>> > In comp.os.linux.misc brundlefly76@hotmail.com <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
>> > > with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
>> > > results.
>> > 
>> > There is no reason it should - that's part of C++.
>> 
>> Nonsense. 'fopen' is part of C, and yet, on any unix or linux system
>>     I've used, 'man fopen' results in useful information.
>
> Well, there happens traditionally to be a chapter of the man pages
> devoted to C library calls. Hey, two chapters. Maybe more. Unix is
> written in C, after all, and extending it (writting applications and
> system softare) required some documentation and it came with the system
> as the man pages. 
>
> But ...  there is no chapter for pascal library calls (are there any?).
> Nor java calls.  Nor ML library calls, nor ...  well, I don't know if
> APL _could_ ever have a library :).
>
> So I don't see why you think that an "arbitrary" language should come
> with a chapter of the manpages all writetn out, one page per standard
> language library call. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps yu think C++ is
> anything but arbitrary, and that it deserves its place at the center of
> the pantheon of languages!

If you had paid any attention at all to this thread,
you would already know why the original poster expected the man
pages to cover C++.

> As it happens, some languages do have manpages per call (perl springs
> to mind, as does tk/tcl, but I always jetison that mess. They have to
> be joking).
>
>> 'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
>>     even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
>>     reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.
>
> But C++ has nothing intrinsically to do with unix in the way that C does.

Neither do the other languages that are documented with man pages.
It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> > But ...  there is no chapter for pascal library calls (are there any?).
> > Nor java calls.  Nor ML library calls, nor ...  well, I don't know if
> > APL _could_ ever have a library :).
> >
> > So I don't see why you think that an "arbitrary" language should come
> > with a chapter of the manpages all writetn out, one page per standard
> > language library call. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps yu think C++ is
> > anything but arbitrary, and that it deserves its place at the center of
> > the pantheon of languages!
> 
> If you had paid any attention at all to this thread,
> you would already know why the original poster expected the man
> pages to cover C++.

I read the thread and recall only that he expected it WITHOUT reason -
feel free to enlighten me if you believe that he had a reason for his
expectation.  I seem to remember he originally asked something like
"where do I go to pick up all the extra libraries".  Oh - wan't he
arguing by analogy ith perl? Then the preence of perl manpages may have
been his "reason"! But that's an anomalous example - there are far more
languages WITHOUT man pages for their library calls than WITH.

> > As it happens, some languages do have manpages per call (perl springs
> > to mind, as does tk/tcl, but I always jetison that mess. They have to
> > be joking).
> >
> >> 'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
> >>     even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
> >>     reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.
> >
> > But C++ has nothing intrinsically to do with unix in the way that C does.
> 
> Neither do the other languages that are documented with man pages.

And neither do the other languages that are not documented with man
pages.

> It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

It seems yours is. I'd say therefore that there is no correlation,
therefore no reason to expect it.


Peter

ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:

> Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
>> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
>> > But ...  there is no chapter for pascal library calls (are there any?).
>> > Nor java calls.  Nor ML library calls, nor ...  well, I don't know if
>> > APL _could_ ever have a library :).
>> >
>> > So I don't see why you think that an "arbitrary" language should come
>> > with a chapter of the manpages all writetn out, one page per standard
>> > language library call. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps yu think C++ is
>> > anything but arbitrary, and that it deserves its place at the center of
>> > the pantheon of languages!
>> 
>> If you had paid any attention at all to this thread,
>> you would already know why the original poster expected the man
>> pages to cover C++.
>
> I read the thread and recall only that he expected it WITHOUT reason -
> feel free to enlighten me if you believe that he had a reason for his
> expectation.  I seem to remember he originally asked something like
> "where do I go to pick up all the extra libraries".  Oh - wan't he
> arguing by analogy ith perl? Then the preence of perl manpages may have
> been his "reason"! But that's an anomalous example - there are far more
> languages WITHOUT man pages for their library calls than WITH.

So you do know why he expected C++ man pages.

>> > As it happens, some languages do have manpages per call (perl springs
>> > to mind, as does tk/tcl, but I always jetison that mess. They have to
>> > be joking).
>> >
>> >> 'man' is the traditional documentation format on unix and linux, and
>> >>     even today it is still preferred by many users. That's plenty of
>> >>     reason for a C++ implentor to provide a man page for cout.
>> >
>> > But C++ has nothing intrinsically to do with unix in the way that C does.
>> 
>> Neither do the other languages that are documented with man pages.
>
> And neither do the other languages that are not documented with man
> pages.
>
>> It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
>
> It seems yours is. I'd say therefore that there is no correlation,
> therefore no reason to expect it.

Therefore, therefore.  You think one thing leads to another,
yet you are unable to follow a very simple line of reasoning.

I know one language, I see lots of man pages.
I tried this second language, why are there no man pages?

On what planet is this line of reasoning unexpected?

The only anomoly is your inability to see the simple logic of it.

Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> [ptb]
> >> It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
> >
> > It seems yours is. I'd say therefore that there is no correlation,
> > therefore no reason to expect it.
> 
> Therefore, therefore.  You think one thing leads to another,

Yep.

> yet you are unable to follow a very simple line of reasoning.

I follow it fine - it's mistaken, for lack of understanding.  It
contains the false generalization "I know X is Y, therefore all X is
Y": you know Perl has man pages per function, therefore you think all
languages have man pages per function, therefore you think C++ has.  The
first "therefore" in that chain is invalid.

> I know one language, I see lots of man pages.
> I tried this second language, why are there no man pages?

Because there is no reason why there should be. Just as having a red
car does not imply that all cars are red.


> On what planet is this line of reasoning unexpected?

The normal one. When you cease making invalid logical jumps, you will
have joined the rest of us!

> The only anomoly is your inability to see the simple logic of it.

I see the "logic" and tell you that it is mistaken: arguing that
everything is like the only thing you know is a quick way to get
yourself shot by either your friends or your enemies, depending on
which gets most fed up with your parochiality first. It's argument by
false generalization, which is, uh false.

Peter

ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:

> Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
>> [ptb]
>> >> It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
>> >
>> > It seems yours is. I'd say therefore that there is no correlation,
>> > therefore no reason to expect it.
>> 
>> Therefore, therefore.  You think one thing leads to another,
>
> Yep.
>
>> yet you are unable to follow a very simple line of reasoning.
>
> I follow it fine - it's mistaken, for lack of understanding.  It
> contains the false generalization "I know X is Y, therefore all X is
> Y": you know Perl has man pages per function, therefore you think all
> languages have man pages per function, therefore you think C++ has.  The
> first "therefore" in that chain is invalid.

I'm thru playing with you for now, but Perl doesn't have
man pages per function.  If it did, there wouldn't be
a man page named perlfunc.

brundlefly76@hotmail.com wrote:
> As a Perl programmer for many years, this week I decided to stick my
> toe back into C for a specific project.
>
> During which I was tinkering with C++, which I have no production
> experience in.
>
> I am embarrased to say I am having soem difficulty navigating C++ in
> Linux.
>
> I am pretty certain that I installed all the available documentation
> with my Suse 9.2 install, yet 'man cout' for example, yields no
> results.
>
> I have no problems finding my perl and c man documentation, and the C++
> compiler is installed and works fine.
>
> So, my first problem is that I dont know where the man pages live for
> C++, or where to get them if Im missing them.
>
> Second, I realize that there are C++ extensions and OO libraries and so
> on. In Perl, I would just visit CPAN for these things.
>
> How and where do I browse the available library of contributed C++
> libs?
>
> For example, I want to parse posix command line options, which in C I
> would do with getopt_long. I assume, however, that someone has already
> written a nice OO C++ interface to command line options - where do I go
> to *find* these types of libraries?

This has sure gotten to be a long thread. I run Red Hat Enterprise Linux,
and there is a lot of documentation to be obtained, starting at:

/usr/share/doc/rhel-gcc-en-3/index.html

that you can examine with a browser. I do not know where it is in SuSE,
but it might be there somewhere like that. Probably will not say rhel- in
it though.

One reason why functions like close(), open(), read() and write() have
manual pages is that there are kernel entries that support them almost
directly, so a manual page is appropriate.

Things like cout <<, cerr <<, etc., do not exist is that there are no
kernel entries for them; they are internal to the implimentation of C++
(and are almost certainly implimented by run-time library routines that
call close(), open(), etc.), so you will not find manual pages for them
any more than you would find manual pages for the DO and FORMAT statements
of a FORTRAN compiler.

In C++ you can access the IO routines like read(), write(), etc., if you
want to,  but it is usually a mistake. I do find things like sprintf()
helpful, though.

I found the best documentation I use for C++ are in a few textbooks. To
begin, I like "C++ Primer" by Lippman and Lajoie (I have the Third
Edition) for most everything, and "The C++ Standard Library" by Josuttis.
Bjarne Stroustrup's book, "The C++ Programming Language" is good if you
need it, and Peggy Ellis and Bjarne Stroustrup's book, "The Annotated C++
Reference Manual" can be helpful. But I would not start with the last two.

-- 
    .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
   /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
   ^^-^^ 17:15:00 up 48 days, 1:32, 3 users, load average: 4.26, 4.19, 4.17


      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> 
> > Dan Espen <daneNO@spam.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
> >> [ptb]
> >> >> It seems your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
> >> >
> >> > It seems yours is. I'd say therefore that there is no correlation,
> >> > therefore no reason to expect it.
> >> 
> >> Therefore, therefore.  You think one thing leads to another,
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> >> yet you are unable to follow a very simple line of reasoning.
> >
> > I follow it fine - it's mistaken, for lack of understanding.  It
> > contains the false generalization "I know X is Y, therefore all X is
> > Y": you know Perl has man pages per function, therefore you think all
> > languages have man pages per function, therefore you think C++ has.  The
> > first "therefore" in that chain is invalid.
> 
> I'm thru playing with you for now, but Perl doesn't have
> man pages per function.  If it did, there wouldn't be

It does. You are confused by language.

% man -k perl
Bundle::LWP (3pm)    - A bundle to install all libwww-perl related modules
Digest::MD2 (3pm)    - Perl interface to the MD2 Algorithm
Digest::MD5 (3pm)    - Perl interface to the MD5 Algorithm
Digest::SHA1 (3pm)   - Perl interface to the SHA-1 Algorithm
....

perlhist (1p)        - the Perl history records
perlipc (1p)         - Perl interprocess communication (signals, fifos, pipes, safe subprocesses, sockets, and semaphores)
perllocale (1p)      - Perl locale handling (internationalization and localization)
perlmod (1p)         - Perl modules (packages and symbol tables)
perlmodinstall (1p)  - Installing CPAN Modules
...

And I have _removed_ most of the perl gunk that gets installed in the
man sections. Without reading it, I may add.

But if, as you maintain, perl does not have man pages for perl
"functions", then why do you think C++ does?

I remind you that your exposed reasoning is reasoning by false
generalization from a small sample, so if you don't even have a sample
that exhibits the trait, why would you believe it universal, a priori?

Puzzzzzzzzllllllling :0.


> a man page named perlfunc.

That man page is for internal perl operators, not functions, in the C or
C++ sense of the word (or Pascal sense, for all I know!).

  The functions in this section can serve as terms in an expression.
  They fall into two major categories: list operators and named unary
  operators.



Peter