Prev: Compound += operator overriding with derived classes
Next: Are lock free algorithms possible in C++?
From: joe on 22 Jul 2010 19:46
Bo Persson wrote:
> joe wrote:
>> Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>
> As i am sure you know, the proposal is right here:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf
>
> This is now being reviewed by the ISO member countries, and possibly
> after a few bug fixes, will be voted for as the new standard.
>
>
> Bo Persson

Mathias Gaunard posted that the final paper isn't expected until late
next year (!), is that correct or wrong? How long does the voting take
after everyone accepts the standard, or IS that the "voting"? From the
responses, I gather that it is still years away (?).

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

From: Francis Glassborow on 22 Jul 2010 22:29
joe wrote:
> Bo Persson wrote:
>> joe wrote:
>>> Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>> As i am sure you know, the proposal is right here:
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3092.pdf
>>
>> This is now being reviewed by the ISO member countries, and possibly
>> after a few bug fixes, will be voted for as the new standard.
>>
>>
>> Bo Persson
>
> Mathias Gaunard posted that the final paper isn't expected until late
> next year (!), is that correct or wrong? How long does the voting take
> after everyone accepts the standard, or IS that the "voting"? From the
> responses, I gather that it is still years away (?).
>

As the voting for an FCD is just about done, assuming that succeeds and
FDIS should be out for voting by early next year which results in an IS
somewhere in the late 2nd or early 3rd quarter of 2011. Even if it takes
more than two WG21 meetings to address the NB comments on the FCD an IS
should still be released before the end of 2011.

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

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida on 24 Jul 2010 23:25
On Jul 11, 4:49 pm, Andrew <marlow.and...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11 July, 15:46, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
> > Hello. Is it done yet? What's the delay?
>
> Based on my experience waiting for compilers that are compatible with
> the Sept 1998 standard, I reckon we've all got a very long wait. I am
> working with Visual Studio 2005 at the moment (not out of choice) and
> it isn't even 1998-compliant (e.g exception specifications). Hopefully
> Studio 2010 will be closer but I'm not holding my breath.

Visual C++ 2003/2005/2008 (don't know about 2010) doesn't have
Exception
Specifications because Microsoft thinks it is not useful to implement
it.
And I don't know that lacking this feature from the standard is very
good,
but I must agree with them that ES is not very useful. Anywhere I see
people
using ES they are using it wrong. How many times I've seen people
using new
all over the place and giving ES for a single exception that reports
some
specific error, without bad_alloc. If new fails the application just
terminates.

[snip - D marketing]

> What I would really like to C++ does not seem to be barely on the
> agenda at all, namely the addition of some standard classes to address
> portable ways of doing things. Boost is adding some of these but very
> late in the day, too late for C++0x, sadly. The boost filesystem stuff
> was only recently added, for example. And it still has a way to go. It
> still has problems with UNCs on Windoze. The async IO for sockets work
> is also relatively late on the scene. If only more of these classes
> learnt from what has been done in Java. It's not all doom and gloom
> though. I am pleased at what boost has done with threads, mutexes and
> condition variables. It will be great to see these in C++0x. It'll be
> a long wait though....

asio is part of boost for quite sometime, and existed before boost as
well.
boost.filesystem is going to version 3, but it also existed for
sometime
in boost.
Boost is a necessity. That's not necessarily bad. I don't want bad
classes
standardized.
I rather library authors experiment with boost and pass a
very rigorous peer review, work out any problems and use-cases
with users first.
It's is very unfortunate that it is hard, and few people take this
challenge or endure it for much time, so we can have more excellent
libraries.

> Regards,
>
> Andrew Marlow
>
> --

Regards,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida


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

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Compound += operator overriding with derived classes
Next: Are lock free algorithms possible in C++?