[...]I have at least half of both volumes, and it really seems to me that there are real problems here with the exposition. Let me see if I can elaborate.
Here is an actual sentence from the book-
We construct a symbol table that is made up of an ordered array of keys, except that we keep in that array not the key, but an index into the text string that points to the first character of the key.
Consider that there are two possible conflicting meanings of the sentence fragment :
...an index into the text string that points to the first character of the key.
In the first meaning, there is an index that points to the first character of a string which string has the property that it, in its turn "points to the first character of the key". (a String is engaged in pointing and so in the index.)
In the second meaning, there is an index that points (into) a text string and in fact that index points into the FIRST CHARACTER of that text string, and that first character the index is pointing to, well, that is the also first character of the key. (only the index is pointing; the string pointeth not.)
OK so how do you describe what's missing here? At least the disambiguating use of commas, at least. It's as though he likes to write in subordinate clauses, but thinks it's economical to leave out the punctuation (which, it is true, there are no hard and fast rules for).
So it's just sentence after sentence after sentence like that. Sometimes you can understand what he's saying. Other times, really you just can't. IF each sentence has 2 (or more!) possible interpretations, and each sentence depends on your understanding the last (as is the case- he never says the same thing in two different ways), then you get this ambiguity growing at the alarming rate of x^2, an observation the author might enjoy.
As the other reviewers said, the code is a C programmers attempt to write in Java. This never goes well.....
But the fact remains it is still the most accessible and thorough coverage of some of its subjects. So what are you going to do?
I don't get the impression he is deliberately bartering in obscuratism, it's just that this book suffers (and so will you) from a lack of editing, a lack of reviewing and feedback by genuine, unaided learners etc. etc.
You might want to check other people's lists for alternatives. Or not. Perhaps that passage was perfectly clear to you.