Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.

C++ 14 Ratified

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday August 19 2014, @04:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the (C++)++ dept.

tkd-physics writes:

Herb Sutter reports that the ballot closed on Friday.

From the announcement:

We will perform some final editorial tweaks, on the order of fixing a few spelling typos and accidentally dropped words, and then transmit the document to ISO for publication this year as the brand new International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2014(E) Programming Language C++, a.k.a. C++14."

https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/08/we-have-cpp14

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
C++ 14 Ratified | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2014, @09:39AM (#82980)

    Well, some people obviously think just because they don't write down the type themselves, it isn't there.

    BTW, I wonder if with the return type inference for lambdas with several returns, they allow for the same type inference as they allow for ?: since I think it would be frustrating if you'd do

    [](long x)
    {
      if (x>0)
        return x;
      else
        return 0;
    }

    and the compiler complains, while

    [](long x)
    {
      return (x>0)? x : 0;
    }

    compiles fine. Note that while in this specific case, the ?: is just as readable, in more complex situations it may not be.