Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!
From: John B. Turpish (jbturp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-30 12:37:16

Next message: Mathias Gaunard: "Re: [boost] miscompilation: boost.mpi, gcc 4.6 and c++0x"
Previous message: Marshall Clow: "[boost] Version 10 of Boost.Algorithm available"
In reply to: Richard Hadsell: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!"
Next in thread: Dave Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!"

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Richard Hadsell
<hadsell_at_[hidden]> 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?

Next message: Mathias Gaunard: "Re: [boost] miscompilation: boost.mpi, gcc 4.6 and c++0x"
Previous message: Marshall Clow: "[boost] Version 10 of Boost.Algorithm available"
In reply to: Richard Hadsell: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!"
Next in thread: Dave Abrahams: "Re: [boost] [C++0x] ISO/IEC approves C++0x standard!"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk