Blocks in C, not C++ [LWN.net]

Blocks in C, not C++

Posted Sep 16, 2009 22:39 UTC (Wed) by ncm (guest, #165)
In reply to: Blocks in C, not C++ by elanthis
Parent article: Tornado and Grand Central Dispatch: a quick look

"C++98" was never a formal name. The formal name is "ISO 14882:1998". Whether "C++10" or "C++0xA" wins out (or, indeed, C++0xB) is purely a matter of popular usage. You (and you, and you!) can help swing it the way you want.

to post comments

Blocks in C, not C++

Posted Sep 17, 2009 17:17 UTC (Thu) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link] (3 responses)

> Whether "C++10" or "C++0xA" wins out (or, indeed, C++0xB) is

\begin{pedantic}
NOT "C++0xA". The "x" is a wild card which under normal expectations would be replaced with an element of [0-9]. The joke is that since "C++0x" is taking so long. We (they) will keep the implied promise of a first decade delivery by extending the membership of the wildcard to [0-F] (hex).

That means that if you replace the "x" with an "A", you write it as "C++0A" not as "C++0xA"!.

In any case (as pointed out elsewhere), the name is not the real name for the language. It is a joke. The "official" non-real name will surely be of the form "C++1x".
\end{pedantic}

Cry

next C++ standard

Posted Sep 17, 2009 19:17 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (2 responses)

I think that the joke is funnier if you interpret the "0x" as the hexadecimal prefix in C and, well, C++; so "0xA" is "10" in legal C. Therefore decimal "C++09" is followed by hexadecimal "C++0xA".

next C++ standard

Posted Sep 18, 2009 11:41 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link] (1 responses)

But 0 as a prefix means octal, so 09 is actually an illegal constant. :-(

next C++ standard

Posted Sep 27, 2009 22:23 UTC (Sun) by bluss (guest, #47454) [Link]

Well then, fools were we to expect that an illegal C++09 would ever be released!