C++0x

[S6k9GNh0]

I figured I would review the C++0x and document it while I'm at it for a few reasons. To start off, let's go for my favorite, the range-based for-loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x#Range-based_for-loop

EDIT: fudge, gotta go, bbl.

[Albatross]

Wow... just... wow...

This version of C++ is gonna rock.

-Albatross

[firedraco]

This too:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html

[Bazzy]

I just installed gcc 4.5 which supports many of the C++0x features and it's really cool
Unfortunately the new for is not yet supported

[Duthomhas]

But Boost's foreach does that though... Here's the Wikipedia code using Boost:

#include <boost/foreach.hpp>
#define foreach BOOST_FOREACH 

int my_array[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
foreach (int& x, my_array)
{
  x *= 2;
}

Enjoy!

[blackcoder41]

the same syntax of loop in java..

i don't like the name 0x

[Bazzy]

0x was a temporary name gave because it was thought to be released before 2010, it's not official

[blackcoder41]

how about C+=2 lol

[1yR4jE8b]

The OpenSuse development branch just switch over to GCC 4.5 so I'm going to wait for 11.3 to try it out...but the new language features are hella exciting.

I really like the idea of the auto keyword.

[S6k9GNh0]

Should I use boost or the new C++ standard?

[1yR4jE8b]

You should be using boost anyway ;-D It's farking amazing

[Bazzy]

The new C++ standard is not yet a standard

[S6k9GNh0]

That sentence conflicts itself. That also means that you probably know what I actually meant. >.>

[blackcoder41]

the standard is not standard?

[jsmith]

It must go a year without major edits before ANSI will adopt it as "standard".
Therefore, no, what people commonly refer to as the "C++0x standard" is
really just a proposal at this point.

[firedraco]

Although basically all compiler vendors are incorporating features anyway (good!).

[Albatross]

What would really suck is if for some reason ANSI suddenly changed everything about the standard, a few hours before they adopted it as the standard.

They'd never do that, but...

-Albatross

[1yR4jE8b]

Then it couldn't be adopted...it has to be unchanged for an entire year before it becomes standard. That's the process.

[Albatross]

I know, I know...

Still, Intel and the GNU Project and Microsoft would be completely pissed.

However, I do seriously hope that the standard remains unchanged for that year. I can't think of anything really critical that C++ needs that isn't in the new non-standard standard, and we really need those things that are in the standard.

EDIT: Maybe not need, but it would save us a lot of coding time.

-Albatross

[Bazzy]

There are a LOT of good features that will not be included in the next standard.
I hope that the following language update will come sooner than this had.