Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> For the life of me, I can't find my bookmark that links to someone's
> excellent list of C9X/C++ issues. I know someone here was working on
> the topic...

I am working on such a document (I was inspired by a comment posted
by Bjarne Stroustrup in news:comp.std.c++).  The latest draft is at
  http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm

> and now my publisher is asking if we need to cover C9X in my
> forthcoming C++ book.

It would probably depend upon how long you expect the lifetime of
your book to be.  C99 was just ratified, and presumably we will
start seeing C99-compliant C compilers within a year or so, so
such incompatibility issues will become more evident around that
timeframe.

> I told him "no", based on conversations herein, since the C++ is
> explicitly based on C89, and that C9X has numerous changes
> incompatible with C++.

Most of the incompatibilities are minor, and, as you say:

> Certainly, some compiler vendors will implement bits and pieces of
> C9X in their C++ compilers, I don't see how any of C9X will affect
> C++ for the next couple of years.

-- David R. Tribble, david@tribble.com, http://www.david.tribble.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

For the life of me, I can't find my bookmark that links to someone's
excellent list of C9X/C++ issues. I know someone here was working on the
topic... and now my publisher is asking if we need to cover C9X in my
forthcoming C++ book.

I told him "no", based on conversations herein, since the C++ is explicitly
based on C89, and that C9X has numerous changes incompatible with C++.
Certainly, some compiler vendors will implement bits and pieces of C9X in
their C++ compilers, I don't see how any of C9X will affect C++ for the next
couple of years.

Or am I hopelessly naive? ;}

Opinions, as always, welcome.

--
  *     Scott Robert Ladd
  *     Coyote Gulch Productions - http://www.coyotegulch.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <7upqea$1inn$1@hardcore.ivn.net> "Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> writes:
>For the life of me, I can't find my bookmark that links to someone's
>excellent list of C9X/C++ issues. I know someone here was working on the
>topic... and now my publisher is asking if we need to cover C9X in my
>forthcoming C++ book.
>
>I told him "no", based on conversations herein, since the C++ is explicitly
>based on C89, and that C9X has numerous changes incompatible with C++.
>Certainly, some compiler vendors will implement bits and pieces of C9X in
>their C++ compilers, I don't see how any of C9X will affect C++ for the next
>couple of years.
>
>Or am I hopelessly naive? ;}

Things will no doubt being to trickle across in non-strict modes.
Probably not enough to warrant a revision to a C++ text just yet,
but look out for 'long long', __func__, some preprocessor changes, etc
if you want to add an appendix to another printing.


- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
     Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- NOTE 4.2.42 BETAS NOW AVAILABLE
    Email: comeau@comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
                *** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]