On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nicola Musatti wrote:
> Maybe a comment on the status of the Technical Corrigendum would be in
> order. I'm not up to date on it, can anybody else enlighten us?

The first TC is about ready to be voted on by the C++ Committee.
We expected to vote on it at the April meeting, but it was held
up by technical difficulties. Assuming it passes, which it probably
will, it goes to ISO for formal approval, which takes a few months,
assuming the National Body vote also passes.

The Issue Lists (see the comp.std.c++ FAQ) show which items were
included in the TC.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com

---
[ 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                       ]

Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<sfsa+7BSwU68Ewd1@robinton.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <ac7qfq$nhn7n$1@ID-135723.news.dfncis.de>, Razvan Cojocaru
> <razvanco@gmx.net> writes
> >I wonder if anyone could indulge my curiosity about the upcoming C++
> >standard.
> >My questions are:
> ...
> >* has the committee decide on any concrete extensions to the standard
> >library?
>
> No. We have not decided anything yet. All we have done so far is to
> draft some guidelines on how we will decide what changes to consider.

Note that the Library Technical Report is due in a much closer time
frame than the C++0x standard revision. ISO expects TR's to take no
more than three years to complete. That would imply sometime in 2004
for the library TR, IIRC.

--Beman

---
[ 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                       ]

In article <70fa0367.0205211714.4892f116@posting.google.com>, Beman
Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes
>> >* has the committee decide on any concrete extensions to the standard
>> >library?
>>
>> No. We have not decided anything yet. All we have done so far is to
>> draft some guidelines on how we will decide what changes to consider.
>
>Note that the Library Technical Report is due in a much closer time
>frame than the C++0x standard revision. ISO expects TR's to take no
>more than three years to complete. That would imply sometime in 2004
>for the library TR, IIRC.

However, also note that a TR does not change a Standard. A TC does, but
do not confuse the two. The purposes of TR's is generally to warn others
which way things are likely to go with the next revision of a Standard
and to gain practical experience whilst encouraging everyone to move in
the same direction.


--
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ 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                       ]

In article <ac7qfq$nhn7n$1@ID-135723.news.dfncis.de>, Razvan Cojocaru
<razvanco@gmx.net> writes
>I wonder if anyone could indulge my curiosity about the upcoming C++
>standard.
>My questions are:
>* what is the (approximative) expected date of the release of the the new
>standard? (the year would do)

Not earlier than 2008. I would be surprised if it were later than 2010

>* how much of C99 has the committee decided at this time to include in
>C++0x?

We have not got round to making such decisions. But I guess the answer
is 'as much as is not harmful to C++ and no more."

>* have things like automatically adding a virtual destructor to classes with
>virtual member function been resolved by the committee at this time?

No. We are right at the start of the process.

>* has the committee decide on any concrete extensions to the standard
>library?

No. We have not decided anything yet. All we have done so far is to
draft some guidelines on how we will decide what changes to consider.


--
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ 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                       ]

Maybe a comment on the status of the Technical Corrigendum would be in
order. I'm not up to date on it, can anybody else enlighten us?

Cheers,
Nicola Musatti

---
[ 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                       ]

Hello.

I wonder if anyone could indulge my curiosity about the upcoming C++
standard.
My questions are:
* what is the (approximative) expected date of the release of the the new
standard? (the year would do)
* how much of C99 has the committee decided at this time to include in
C++0x?
* have things like automatically adding a virtual destructor to classes with
virtual member function been resolved by the committee at this time?
* has the committee decide on any concrete extensions to the standard
library?

Thank you,
Razvan

P.S. Please do not refer me to the JTC1/SC22/WG21 - C++ or the Boost sites.
I've been there and still need to ask these questions. I have the november
2001 draft but as far as I could tell it doesn't even mention automatically
generating a virtual destructor for classes with virtual member functions or
disallowing copy operations for classes with user-defined destructors.


---
[ 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                       ]