C++0xA

[Edson Manoel]

I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
+0xB, etc... ;)

KTNX

[kwikius]

Re: C++0xA


"Edson Manoel" <e.tadeu@gmail. comwrote in message
news:324a851b-96f9-42bf-849e-510790471d06@z7 2g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...

>I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
+0xB, etc... ;)

Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ... hmmm...
In 50 years it might be

C++++++++++++++ +++++++

Cool huh? ... :-)

regards
Andy Little

[Victor Bazarov]

Re: C++0xA

kwikius wrote:

"Edson Manoel" <e.tadeu@gmail. comwrote in message
news:324a851b-96f9-42bf-849e-510790471d06@z7 2g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...
>

>I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
>come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
>still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
>+0xB, etc... ;)

>
Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ... hmmm...
In 50 years it might be
>
C++++++++++++++ +++++++
>
Cool huh? ... :-)

Then we should presume that 'C' has the type that returns an *lvalue*
from its operator++(int) . Otherwise you can't chain post-increments...

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[kwikius]

Re: C++0xA


"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@com Acast.netwrote in message
news:g58gme$aul $1@news.datemas .de...

kwikius wrote:

>"Edson Manoel" <e.tadeu@gmail. comwrote in message
>news:324a851 b-96f9-42bf-849e-510790471d06@z7 2g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...
>>

>>I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
>>come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
>>still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
>>+0xB, etc... ;)

>>
>Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ...
>hmmm... In 50 years it might be
>>
>C+++++++++++++ ++++++++
>>
>Cool huh? ... :-)

>
Then we should presume that 'C' has the type that returns an *lvalue* from
its operator++(int) . Otherwise you can't chain post-increments...

Victor... I hate to break it to you but .....

int main()
{
int C;
C++ 0xA; // syntax error
}

defacto ergo sum qed ... my version is way cooler.

regards
Andy Little

[Serve Lau]

Re: C++0xA


"kwikius" <andy@servocomm .freeserve.co.u kschreef in bericht
news:4877c0f9$1 _4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tisca li.com...

>
"Edson Manoel" <e.tadeu@gmail. comwrote in message
news:324a851b-96f9-42bf-849e-510790471d06@z7 2g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...
>

>>I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
>come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
>still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
>+0xB, etc... ;)

>
Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ...
hmmm... In 50 years it might be
>
C++++++++++++++ +++++++
>
Cool huh? ... :-)

Can get a bit annoying in compiler advertisment:

"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C++++++++++++++ +++++++,
C++++++++++++++ +++++, C++++++++++++++ +++, C++++++++++++++ + and
C+++++++++++++"

Or in newsgroups where you say what standard you're using.

"Hey my code doesnt work. I'm using Linux, with C++++++++++++++ +++++. Please
help me"

>
regards
Andy Little
>

[kwikius]

Re: C++0xA


"Serve Lau" <nihao@qinqin.c omwrote in message
news:2a225$4878 9281$541fc2ec$8 838@cache6.tilb u1.nb.home.nl.. .

>
"kwikius" <andy@servocomm .freeserve.co.u kschreef in bericht
news:4877c0f9$1 _4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tisca li.com...

>>
>"Edson Manoel" <e.tadeu@gmail. comwrote in message
>news:324a851 b-96f9-42bf-849e-510790471d06@z7 2g2000hsb.googl egroups.com...
>>

>>>I would like to make a small suggestion if C++0x ISO standard don't
>>come out in 2009 (to be called C++09): if it comes out in 2010, it can
>>still be called C++0xA, if it comes out in 2011, it can be called C+
>>+0xB, etc... ;)

>>
>Nah ... just add another + for each new version ought to do it ...
>hmmm... In 50 years it might be
>>
>C+++++++++++++ ++++++++
>>
>Cool huh? ... :-)

>
>
Can get a bit annoying in compiler advertisment:
>
"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C++++++++++++++ +++++++,
C++++++++++++++ +++++, C++++++++++++++ +++, C++++++++++++++ + and
C+++++++++++++"

I'm working on it (you always get a few initial "teething" problems )...
How about a regular expression :

"Great new compiler system. Implements versions C\+{7,21}"

Sounds Cool huh.. marketing dept will love it I reckon!

:-)

regards
Andy Little