Subject: Re: [boost] C++ announcements coming tomorrow
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-04 15:10:47
On 11/3/2012 5:24 PM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 10:26 AM, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>>> * Microsoft has released an out-of-band community technical preview
>>> (CTP) for their compiler, adding explicit conversion operators, raw
>>> string literals, function template default arguments, delegating
>>> constructors, uniform initialization, and variatic templates. (See
>>> for instructions on how to use the CTP). Microsoft is promising more
>>> such feature releases during the first half of 2013. This is important
>>> for the whole C++ community, since it means that full C++11 support is
>>> becoming a reality across all widely used compilers.
>> Shortly after this talk, Herb held a Q&A session where people had the
>> opportunity to ask him questions about these announcements (can't find
>> a link at the moment).
>> Someone asked whether Microsoft intends to implement full 100% support
>> for standard C++(11), and Herb answered with a resounding 'yes'.
> IMO, yet more marketing b***s***. This has been said before, and Herb
> has long since lost my trust (and the trust of many others). He is no
> longer a free voice. The only person on C9 that doesn't come off as an
> MS shill is STL.
Who is "STL" ?
>> Did anyone tell him about the problems with VC's preprocessor that come
>> up on this list again and again and that prevent a powerful preprocessor
>> metaprogramming library like Chaos from being usable on VC?
> He's been told repeatedly.
Perhaps Herb Sutter does not have the power at Microsoft to determine
what Microsoft will do in regards to complying with the C++ standard, as
opposed to being just one perhaps leading voice among many in
determining such things.
> Not that I'm against a "foundation" or against adding more libraries to
> the standard library, but the only things that C++ programmers need to
> produce portable code are C++ compilers that implement the standard (and
> only the standard--not a bunch of vendor-specific extensions). As an
> example, paraphrasing, "We're proposing 'await' but if the committee
> doesn't want it we can always add it as an extension." It is particular
> compiler vendors and their compilers that are getting in the way of
I disagree in principal that compiler vendors should not provide
extensions to a computer language. After all gcc has done it for many
years. Of course I feel that compiler vendors should implement a
computer language as it is defined by the standard for that language and
only provide extensions in situations where the extensions can be turned
off in a clearly defined manner.