[C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor. That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters! --Beman
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo ! What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
On 13/08/2011 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
well I think *now* it's just C++ , "officialy" you may call it ISO/IEC 14882:2011 B.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Bronek Kozicki <brok@spamcop.net> wrote:
On 13/08/2011 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
well I think *now* it's just C++ , "officialy" you may call it ISO/IEC 14882:2011
Yep, ISO/IEC 14882:2011 will be the official name. C++11 seems to be the unofficial name that is gaining traction when folks need to distinguish between versions of the standard. --Beman
On 13/08/11 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
I think this depends when it gets published. That's very likely to be this year, in which case C++11. John Bytheway
On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:01 AM, John Bytheway wrote:
On 13/08/11 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
I think this depends when it gets published. That's very likely to be this year, in which case C++11.
Shouldn't it be C++0b? <wink/>
On 08/15/2011 09:36 AM, Ian Emmons wrote:
Shouldn't it be C++0b? <wink/> But that would start an endless battle over whether it should be C++0b or C++0B.
-- Dick Hadsell 203-992-6320 Fax: 203-992-6001 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 1 American Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-2560
According to Scott Meyers, that joke is so 0x0A (see http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/home/move-semanticsperfect-forwarding-and-rv... ). Ben Robinson, Ph.D. On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Richard Hadsell <hadsell@blueskystudios.com
wrote:
On 08/15/2011 09:36 AM, Ian Emmons wrote:
Shouldn't it be C++0b? <wink/>
But that would start an endless battle over whether it should be C++0b or C++0B.
-- Dick Hadsell 203-992-6320 Fax: 203-992-6001 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 1 American Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-2560
______________________________**_________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/** mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
it seems B uses more black pixels than b and therefore save energy on a screen !!!! For the same reason, b consumes less ink on a printer. :-D Pffffff my 2 cents.... On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 16:15, Richard Hadsell <hadsell@blueskystudios.com>wrote:
On 08/15/2011 09:36 AM, Ian Emmons wrote:
Shouldn't it be C++0b? <wink/>
But that would start an endless battle over whether it should be C++0b or C++0B.
-- Dick Hadsell 203-992-6320 Fax: 203-992-6001 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 1 American Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-2560
______________________________**_________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/** mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Richard Hadsell <hadsell@blueskystudios.com> wrote:
On 08/15/2011 09:36 AM, Ian Emmons wrote:
Shouldn't it be C++0b? <wink/>
But that would start an endless battle over whether it should be C++0b or C++0B.
Maybe it should be C++7db if we're going that route?
on Sun Aug 14 2011, John Bytheway <jbytheway+boost-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/11 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
I think this depends when it gets published. That's very likely to be this year, in which case C++11.
That would be the unofficial name. Bronek had the correct official designation. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On 8/15/2011 4:59 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Aug 14 2011, John Bytheway<jbytheway+boost-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/11 23:32, Edward Diener wrote:
On 8/13/2011 11:43 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
The C++0x standard has been approved by ISO/IEC. The vote was unanimous; all 21 National Bodies voting were in favor.
That means the dozen or so Boost libraries that were in TR1 are now part of the standard itself. Good work, Boosters!
Bravo !
What is the official name of the new C++ standard ? You refer to it as C++0x, which is the name I have been accustomed to hear, but other are now saying C++11.
I think this depends when it gets published. That's very likely to be this year, in which case C++11.
That would be the unofficial name. Bronek had the correct official designation.
I was really asking what informal nomenclature will most likely be used to refer to the new C++ standard. It seems C++11 will probably be the way it will informally be called, and not C++0x as many have gotten used to referring to it while it was still in the process of standardization.
On 16/08/11 00:33, Edward Diener wrote: <snip>
I was really asking what informal nomenclature will most likely be used to refer to the new C++ standard. It seems C++11 will probably be the way it will informally be called, and not C++0x as many have gotten used to referring to it while it was still in the process of standardization.
I think the most important consideration for this is what the gcc argument to the -std option is that deprecates c++0x. AFAICS, they haven't chosen that yet. John
participants (10)
-
Beman Dawes -
Ben Robinson -
Bronek Kozicki -
Dave Abrahams -
David Bellot -
Edward Diener -
Ian Emmons -
John B. Turpish -
John Bytheway -
Richard Hadsell