[cfe-dev] Update to C++0x feature table
Michael Price - Dev
michael.b.price.dev at gmail.com
Mon Dec 20 23:52:21 CST 2010
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Michael Price wrote:
>> I've attached a second patch. Could someone with privs commit it?
>> Also see inline comments below.
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Alex Rosenberg
>> <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Michael Price <michael.b.price.dev at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> > The diff is attached.
>> > I used the following sources:
>> > Bjarne - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
>> > Scott Meyers - http://www.aristeia.com/C++0x/C++0xFeatureAvailability.htm
>> > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x
>> Some additional items and different [not useful] organizations of the
>> features are here:
>> > Things I like about my changes:
>> > 1. Near complete listing of core language changes.
>> > 2. Links to STL implementation status pages.
>> > 3. I like the classification of features.
>> > Things I don't like about my changes:
>> > 1. I would love to provide links into the current draft for each
>> > but I couldn't find a way to link into the draft PDF.
>> > 2. I wish there were a better way to classify features (as some
>> > cross-cutting).
>> > Indifferent:
>> > 1. Draft proposal documents. I included and expanded them because
>> they were
>> > there before.
>> > There is still one extra thing that I haven't done, which is to
>> provide some
>> > sort of desired priority, or if that is too difficult, some way to
>> > dependent relationships between features.
>> A few paper numbers to add:
>> * sizeof on members without object instance is N2150, 5.1.1p10
>> * nullptr is also N2214
>> * char16_t and char32_t are part of N2249
>> Other than that, it would be most helpful if current status were
>> filled in so we all know what needs to be done.
>> Agreed. Alas, I don't know enough to handle that, except for
>> perhaps the type deduction stuff.
>> In my ideal world, as
>> the status in each box is changed, a revision number is put in there
>> since "releases" are infrequent.
>> I had the same thought originally, but wasn't sure how to fit that
>> information in with everything else. I decided to separate the
>> explanation of test status to another paragraph, and just stick an
>> "rXXXXXX" in the complete block. I figure that people could
>> discern what that was for when they saw it.
>> Somebody more familiar with the draft should comment if any items are
>> There are sure to be some things I missed... anyone else looking?
> This is great, Michael, thanks!
> I made a few edits, dropping long double (which was part of C+
> +98/03) and new function declarator syntax (which isn't in C++0x),
> updating status, etc., and committed as r122315.
> - Doug
By new function declaration, I was meaning the trailing return type as
template <typename T, typename U>
auto func (T t, U u) -> decltype(t*u);
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev