Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by tkd-physics on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:10PM

    by tkd-physics (1306) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:10PM (#83555)

    Sarcasm fail.

    Procedural? Yes, and you really should. Only the undereducated think OO is the only right way. Actually, only the undereducated think *any specific technique* is the only right way.

    Object oriented only at compile time? Incorrect, OO is just about the only thing C++ can't do at compile time.

    Functional? The preprocessor should be used as little as possible, but most compile time programming is functional. (Well, *all* of it with template metaprogramming, I'm not yet sure how the new constexpr stuff will work out.)

    Awkward closure syntax? Weird, not awkward, a year from now nobody will notice. (The variable declaration syntax is awkward, but that was inherited from C, and everybody is used to that by now.) As I understand it, C++ lambda syntax is just about the only way they could make it work without breaking backwards compatibility. Or do you have a better way they could have done it?