| ||||
 Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by mbw
Looking forward to the additions, it kind of feels like christmas is coming. If I remember correctly, c++11 did not add a “restrict” qualifier because there were uncertainties on how it should be treated in combination with lambda closures. Is it in the realm of the possible that we might see this kind of feature in the upcoming standard? Please think of us poor number crunchers out there! Read More »Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Herb Sutter
@Joe: You can see the parts of LibFund1 that were adopted at the linked paper. Basically, everything except a couple of things that hadn’t been implemented yet, in particular the invocation traits which require compiler support and are still awaiting an implementation to get experience (experience with both implementing it, and then with using it once it’s in a compiler for people to try out). @Yupei: Inline variables got design approval in EWG and is awaiting the authors to bring specification wording to Core for review. Looking at the Jacksonville Core notes, it looks like they noted they are still expecting it and I think they’re planning to look at the wording at our next meeting in June. @mbw: I occasionally see a suggestion for ‘restrict’ but it’s not obvious to everyone that C chose the right semantics and that the feature carries its weight — and if it were done in C++ it would require a bit more detail because C++ has more features to integrate it with. Read More » | ||||
| | ||||
| ||||
Friday, March 18, 2016
FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment