[cfe-dev] Update to C++0x feature table

[Michael Price - Dev]

On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Michael Price wrote:
>
>> I've attached a second patch.  Could someone with privs commit it?   
>> Also see inline comments below.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Alex Rosenberg  
>> <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Michael Price <michael.b.price.dev at gmail.com
>>  > wrote:
>>  > The diff is attached.
>>  > I used the following sources:
>>  > Bjarne - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
>>  > Scott Meyers - http://www.aristeia.com/C++0x/C++0xFeatureAvailability.htm
>>  > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x
>>
>> Some additional items and different [not useful] organizations of the
>> features are here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>>
>>  > Things I like about my changes:
>>  > 1. Near complete listing of core language changes.
>>  > 2. Links to STL implementation status pages.
>>  > 3. I like the classification of features.
>>  > Things I don't like about my changes:
>>  > 1. I would love to provide links into the current draft for each
>> feature,
>>  > but I couldn't find a way to link into the draft PDF.
>>  > 2. I wish there were a better way to classify features (as some  
>> are
>>  > cross-cutting).
>>  > Indifferent:
>>  > 1. Draft proposal documents.  I included and expanded them because
>> they were
>>  > there before.
>>  >
>>  > There is still one extra thing that I haven't done, which is to
>> provide some
>>  > sort of desired priority, or if that is too difficult, some way to
>> indicate
>>  > dependent relationships between features.
>>
>> A few paper numbers to add:
>> * sizeof on members without object instance is N2150, 5.1.1p10
>> * nullptr is also N2214
>> * char16_t and char32_t are part of N2249
>>
>> Other than that, it would be most helpful if current status were
>> filled in so we all know what needs to be done.
>>
>> Agreed.  Alas, I don't know enough to handle that, except for  
>> perhaps the type deduction stuff.
>>
>> In my ideal world, as
>> the status in each box is changed, a revision number is put in there
>> since "releases" are infrequent.
>>
>>
>> I had the same thought originally, but wasn't sure how to fit that  
>> information in with everything else.  I decided to separate the  
>> explanation of test status to another paragraph, and just stick an  
>> "rXXXXXX" in the complete block.  I figure that people could  
>> discern what that was for when they saw it.
>>
>> Somebody more familiar with the draft should comment if any items are
>> missing.
>>
>>
>> There are sure to be some things I missed... anyone else looking?
>
> This is great, Michael, thanks!
>
> I made a few edits, dropping long double (which was part of C+ 
> +98/03) and new function declarator syntax (which isn't in C++0x),  
> updating status, etc., and committed as r122315.
>
> 	- Doug

By new function declaration, I was meaning the trailing return type as  
in:

template <typename T, typename U>
auto func (T t, U u) -> decltype(t*u);
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20101220/02f38d96/attachment.html>