FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill

	Comments for Sutter's Mill
	(Sponsor this newsletter) Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by anonymous clang has had “some” generic lambdas support for a while but since a couple of weeks it seems like really robust. They are awesome, in particular when combined with boost fusion: auto tuple = std::make_tuple(1, 2.0, "hello!"); boost::fusion::for_each(tuple, [](auto i) { std::out << i << ", "; }); // 1, 2.0, hello! :) Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Herb Sutter @anon: Thanks for the pointer! @Sometime: This is a compiler-only CTP to give a preview of new compiler features, it does not include library updates. Of course, when these features hit the full product in a future release, they’ll be complete including library support (among other library updates). Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by SometimeSomewhere @Herb: Thats excellent news and it’s nice to see a more rapid release schedule from the C++ visual studio team. That said will there be any library updates along with the CTP, my understanding/experience is that there are a number areas that need tending to with regards to the most recent VS2013 release. Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Herb Sutter @JC_Yang: Bug fixes will go into Updates as they are available. The CTP is a separate stream. Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by JC_Yang Are there any bugfixes for the VS2013 RTM compiler included in this CTP or they will be only available in the coming VS2013 supported-updates? There’re 6 bugs I know of(I’m tracking 5 of them, 1 is reported by me which is about wrong template instantiation point). Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Ricardo Costa Great news, Herb. Does operator new return memory aligned in accordance to the alignas specification? The MSDN documentation for __declspec(align()) explicitly states that it doesn’t, but __declspec(align()) is not a real language feature, unlike alignas, so I’m wondering if that restriction has changed. Thanks. Read More » Comment on (V)C++ recorded talks at VS 2013 Launch by nosenseetal I was thinking about more of a small LRU cache, if you want to have flexible size you cant use contiguous “array” buffer because linear search will kill your perf. and for delete this i kind of dislike it because it means ppl containing this class need to be aware of its suicidal :P aspirations. :) BTW regarding that code: auto * context = static_cast(response._get_server_context()); I have never before seen auto * before.(ignoring const I have seen only auto, auto&, auto&&) Do you have any comment on using auto*? Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Herb Sutter @Pal: It is a separate stream, think of it as (usually) an early preview of the next major release that’s worked on in a different branch from the current release’s servicing branch. Then it’s the usual decision for each bug fix as to whether to apply it to the current release via Updates, to the next release which would appear in CTP, or both branches. HTH Read More » Comment on (V)C++ recorded talks at VS 2013 Launch by Herb Sutter @nosenseetal: Using auto or auto* deduces the same type, just I guess auto* is mostly useful to explicitly say you want a raw pointer. Non-owning raw pointers are okay to observe an object that will outlive them, such as a tree node owned by its parent (via a unique_ptr(node), say) and observing its parent via a node*. I don’t have any more guidance than to say my impression is that it’s a style point whether you prefer code like “auto p = my_parent();” or “auto* p = my_parent();” — the type is the same in either case. Read More » Comment on GotW #94 Solution: AAA Style (Almost Always Auto) by Yongwei Wu People already mentioned searchability, but that is only part of tool support. There are others. For example, ctags is a popular tool used with editors like Vim: I bet it does not support the new syntax well. Even compilers like VC 2012, which I currently use, do not support all the needed language features. Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Balog Pal Please clarify the update thing. I get it’s a separate stream, but that leaves the update policy open. If the RTM gets a service pack released fixing bugs will the relevant changes merged over to the CTP stream creating an update of that too within some reasonable time? Or we can consider it isolated from mainstream fixes? Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Petter Congratulations! It is great to see rapid progress! Read More » Comment on Visual C++ Compiler November 2013 CTP by Fabio Is there any ETA on a SP for the RTM? It contains a bunch of reproduceble ICEs (8 that I am aware of at connect) This really hinders us moving on to 2013 Read More »
	(Sponsor this newsletter)
	Delievered to you by Feedamail. Unsubscribe