> > Any new feature that is a candidate for the next standard is worth
> > discussing here.
>
> But mojo is not a new feature; it's a programming technique.

Yes, but 'Move semantics' is an actual proposal to add core support and stuff. If mojo, as claimed in the teaser can solve all those problems usng the current language, that strongly influencs the status of that proposal, and maybe several others related.

Paul

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> writes:

> > > Any new feature that is a candidate for the next standard is worth
> > > discussing here.
> >
> > But mojo is not a new feature; it's a programming technique.
>
> Yes, but 'Move semantics' is an actual proposal to add core support
> and stuff.

Really? Who wrote that proposal <wink>?

> If mojo, as claimed in the teaser can solve all those
> problems usng the current language

It can't, though it's certainly an interesting _technique_ with some
potential for specialized applications. Did I forget to mention that
it's a programming technique?

> that strongly influencs the status of that proposal, and maybe
> several others related.

Yes, it would, but it doesn't, and besides nobody has been discussing
its relationship to that proposal here (until now).

--
                    David Abrahams
dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com

Building C/C++ Extensions for Python: Dec 9-11, Austin, TX
http://www.enthought.com/training/building_extensions.html

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]