Metacomco C Manual

[Martin_Head]

Hi,

After Chr$ very kindly sent me his QLC Manual, which is dated 1985, the scanned PDF file is dated 1986, 2nd Edition.

It is looking like the badly scanned PDF file is the larest edition of the manual.

Does, anyone have a Hard Copy 2nd Edition of the manual?

But alas, there are some ommissions to the scanned file, and some changes were in progress probably from Metacocmco. Which becomes more evident when compared to the Printed Manual Edition 1 (thanks Chr$ for the loan of manual).

So I have ammended the Edition 2 text to combine Edition 1 to make the document flow correctly. The main area of error was Chapter 5 which looks to have the sections renumbered. But the Contents list had not bern changed. All very sloppy on the manual writing process.

I dug out my copy of Metacomco C. And it's manual says it's the 2nd edition 1986.

If you know which pages are missing, I don't mind scanning them. Just let me know what resolution you would like, and the file format.

Edit - I just looked at the sample scan on the first page of the thread. And my page numbers don't agree. Page 142 in the scan is 157 in my copy.
Also, I don't have any Errata around page 1

Edit 2 - Just found what I take to be the Spanish scan. Checked the page numbers, looks like they agree with my manual. I don't know where the above scan came from. I noticed pages 98 and 99 missing. Also two of the index pages ii/iii. But all of the index pages look pretty much unreadable.

[Derek_Stewart]

HI Martin,

The PDF Scan is so mixed up, I took 2 days to sort it into the correct page order and split into into single pages. I fear there is still alot of corrections to make.

I am missing:

Index page ii, iii
Index Page vi, viii unreadable

Any format will do, I usually scan at 300DPI B/W, what evers easiest

[Martin_Head]

Looks like a little job for this afternoon. Do you want me to use your Q40 email address? PM me otherwise.

[Derek_Stewart]

Looks like a little job for this afternoon. Do you want me to use your Q40 email address? PM me otherwise.

Yes send the scans to: derek@q40.de

[robheaton]

Is this still a work in progress?
It would be cool to have a decent scan of the manual available.

[Derek_Stewart]

Hi,

I can not upload them here as the fikes are too large, but here is e Mega Link:

The PDF file:
https://mega.nz/file/lSJm2bDL#mWSWSmolx ... 8uXe97MdbU

The Libre Office Writer file:
https://mega.nz/file/RXRl1Lbb#hwZBFeZj9 ... BBH7k3oa9o

There are still sone issues with the the text, that need addressed by someone good at C programming.

My thanks to Martin Head, for the proof reading and corrections to the scanned imag files.

If there are any changes required, please them here, with the page and paragraph details.

[robheaton]

Thank you, this is brilliant.
Well done to everyone involved!

[ones' complement]

Great copy of the manual Derek, very tempting to work through it. Although it appears the disk and ROM are available, do the apparent bugs in it make it worthwhile versus C68 ?

[tofro]

Great copy of the manual Derek, very tempting to work through it. Although it appears the disk and ROM are available, do the apparent bugs in it make it worthwhile versus C68 ?

I used to be a long-time user of MCC. Bugs there were a few, but nothing that really spoiled the fun.

C68 is an old compiler. Metacomco Lattice C, in comparison is ancient, however. For anybody used to modern C programming, MCC might be (for example with its K&R instead of ANSI function declarations) a bit of a venture back to stone age. But the beast is a honest, reasonably professional compiler that has at least one advantage over C68, it can produce position-independant code, something C68 lacks a bit. And both are way above other compilers for the QL. Other than that, I would always favor C68 over MCC.

[Derek_Stewart]

Hi,

MCC is supposed be K&R type compiler, and could used with other platforms. I usually use C68, but GCC is probably the best way to go.

But since the compilers are free, why not use them.

Can C68 be developed more?