1. K&R has defects in it when the functions in it are used out of context because they didn't include defensive programming practices considered standard today.
2. People can learn a lot about writing good code by critiquing other code, even from masters, so I'm taking them through doing that.
3. There should be no sacred cows, and people hold K&R on a pedestal without questioning what's in it. This is really what causes #1, so I have them do #2.
Noble goals. And now that you said that I don't understand how I could have overlooked that in the first place.
Maybe it would be a good idea to put a bit more stress on the "no" in "no sacred cows", that's an important point beyond just K&R. Nothing should be sacred, including "Learning C The Hard Way" - and a "question everything and everyone" mindset is generally a good thing to have as a programmer [I think I read that in "The Pragmatic Programmer" ;-)]. But other than that I now think that chapter is fine. I do apologize for the somewhat passive-aggressive form of my question.
The point is three fold:
1. K&R has defects in it when the functions in it are used out of context because they didn't include defensive programming practices considered standard today.
2. People can learn a lot about writing good code by critiquing other code, even from masters, so I'm taking them through doing that.
3. There should be no sacred cows, and people hold K&R on a pedestal without questioning what's in it. This is really what causes #1, so I have them do #2.
That's it really.