Heh, compilers need to finish adopting the existing C standard before we come out with another one.The next C standard (dubbed C1x) will adopt it, most likely without any changes from C++0x, unless there are errata by that point.
Anways, thanks for the info CornedBee.
Can you provide some links about this? I'm very interested.Originally Posted by CornedBee
EDIT: Here's what I've found: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00067.html
EDIT2:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/projects
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/newinc9x.htm
Last edited by hauzer; 06-04-2009 at 05:13 PM.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Not direct evidence - it simply came up every now and then in my tracking of the evolution of C++0x. But here's an interesting paper: a submission to the C working group justifying a part of the C++ memory model.
N1315: Rationale for the C++ working paper definition of "memory location".
As it says in the introduction, members of the C/C++ liaison group had voiced concerns about the way C++ defines this.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
