C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?

Posted Jan 30, 2009 2:35 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (guest, #2322)
In reply to: The new GCC runtime library exemption by JoeBuck
Parent article: The new GCC runtime library exemption

Speaking of C++0x, time has run out for Stroustrup's Schroedinger's cat 'x', the box opens this year. Either 'x' will collapse to a concrete 9 (in which case we should be referring to C++09already), or the standard won't be issued in 0x at all.

C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?

Posted Jan 30, 2009 2:50 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

the expectation is that it will not be ratified this year (there are too many steps left in the process)

C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?

Posted Jan 30, 2009 4:36 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (3 responses)

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.

C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?

Posted Jan 30, 2009 5:53 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] (2 responses)

Bah - not roman - hex! C++0xA of course!

Pete

PS: can't believe I'm the only one that saw that... or maybe
just the first

C++0x -- flogging a dead cat?

Posted Jan 30, 2009 12:36 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (guest, #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 (subscriber, #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.