| |||||||||||||
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?Posted Jan 30, 2009 4:36 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? by dlang Parent article: The new GCC runtime library exemption
No problem. If it comes out next year, just read it as a roman numeral.
But if it comes out in 2011, I guess they'd have to call it C++0xi.
(Log in to post comments)
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 5:53 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]
Bah - not roman - hex! C++0xA of course!
Pete
PS: can't believe I'm the only one that saw that... or maybe
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 12:36 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
Of course it's hex! I stand corrected. Obvious when you think about it.
C++0x -- flogging a dead cat? Posted Jan 30, 2009 15:48 UTC (Fri) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] It was probably in 1989 when I read a comment that Fortran 8x would have to use hex digits if it needed any longer. However, the released version was not called Fortran 8A, but Fortran 90.
|
|||||||||||||