Christopher Schmidt wrote:
Will it be called "C++0x" or "C++10"?
C++11 is more likely.
http://herbsutter.com/2010/03/13/trip-report-march-2010-iso-c-standards-meet...
From the reference Christopher gives, I actually get the impression that the name is already fixed, and that it will be "C++11".
vincente.botet wrote:
Will it be called "C++0x" or "C++10"?
It is C++0x. And is already fixed.
Do you also have a reference for this statement? vincente.botet wrote:
I didn't think that the name could be a problem.
It's not so much about the name, but about the consequences of the confusion it creates. And I wasn't sure whether the name is still open or already fixed, so I just pointed out that an unclear name is really bad in this case. I did some tests with the proposed boost move library some time ago and wasn't aware that gcc-4.3, gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5 behaved complete different in c++0x mode, and the resulting confusion led me to wrong conclusion and also costed me quite some time. And the libraries that already have emulated move support and C++0x mode move support will have a nice time working around the subtle differences between the different C++0x modes that can already be found in the wild. Of course you intent C++0x to mean the C++0x mode as found in gcc-4.5, msvc-10 and icc-11, but as stated in <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/04/165325.php>, these compilers are not even among the compilers that are tested for the release branch. OK, msvc-10 is tested now for the release branch thanks to Richard Webb, and I haven't even said "thank you" for this :( But msvc-10 has many failed regression tests in the summary, and gcc-4.5 would also have many if it would be present, as you can see in the trunk summary where it is present: <http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/summary.html>. Why not simply wait a bit for the confusion to settle? I haven't even got any useful feedback so for on my patches for Boost.Iterator to get Boost.MultiArray working with msvc-10: <http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/05/165798.php>. And I'm pretty sure that Boost.MultiArray is not the only boost library with serious problems on msvc-10 and icc-11 (especially since in my opinion it is Boost.Iterator that has the bug). Regards, Thomas