I was wondering where I can read up on what is probably coming and changing
and what not. Havent followed the latest developments and decisions for 2
yrs or so. Any help appreciated.

And I read about generalized overloading today. I find all this beautiful
and cute, but my understanding is that symbol lookup will even be more
complicated then? I find it already too complicated and unpredictable today.
Are any simplifications coming? I hope!




---
[ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Philip Koester wrote:
>
> I was wondering where I can read up on what is probably coming and changing
> and what not. Havent followed the latest developments and decisions for 2
> yrs or so. Any help appreciated.

A project has been proposed to extend C++, see
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2001/n1314.htm> for
details. From comments previously posted on this newsgroup, I gather
that a reasonable time frame for completion of the next round of
standardization is about 10 years after completion of the last one,
putting it roughly in 2008. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend getting too
excited about any planned changes. There isn't even a full
implementation of C++98 yet, or at least there wasn't the last time I
checked, though some implementations are pretty close.

> And I read about generalized overloading today. I find all this beautiful

I'm not sure what you mean by generalized overloading. Could you explain
which feature you're referring to?

...
> Are any simplifications coming? I hope!

I doubt it. The general trend has been to add features that complicate
the language, and only rarely to change things to simplify it. This is
primarily due to the need for backward compatibility. You can change
undefined behavior into defined behavior, but changing previously
defined behavior to have a new definition almost always breaks some
legacy code which relied upon that behavior, even if the old definition
was very inconvenient.

---
[ 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.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]