C++0xA

[Edson Manoel]

I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
+0xB, etc...

KTNX

 

[kwikius]

I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
+0xB, etc...

Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ... hmmm...
In 50 years it might be

C+++++++++++++++++++++

Cool huh? ...

regards
Andy Little

 

[kwikius]

Then we should presume that 'C' has the type that returns an *lvalue* from
its operator++(int). Otherwise you can't chain post-increments...

Victor... I hate to break it to you but .....

int main()
{
int C;
C++ 0xA; // syntax error
}

defacto ergo sum qed ... my version is way cooler.

regards
Andy Little

 

[Serve Lau]

Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ...
hmmm... In 50 years it might be

C+++++++++++++++++++++

Cool huh? ...

Can get a bit annoying in compiler advertisment:

"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C+++++++++++++++++++++,
C+++++++++++++++++++, C+++++++++++++++++, C+++++++++++++++ and
C+++++++++++++"

Or in newsgroups where you say what standard you're using.

"Hey my code doesnt work. I'm using Linux, with C+++++++++++++++++++. Please
help me"

 

[kwikius]

Can get a bit annoying in compiler advertisment:

"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C+++++++++++++++++++++,
C+++++++++++++++++++, C+++++++++++++++++, C+++++++++++++++ and
C+++++++++++++"

I'm working on it (you always get a few initial "teething" problems )...
How about a regular expression :

"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C\+{7,21}"

Sounds Cool huh.. marketing dept will love it I reckon!



regards
Andy Little