Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote...
> > The C++ committee is interested, too -- interested enough that back
> > in 1997, they officially asked the C committee if there was anything
> > in C9X that would be difficult to implement in C++.  The C committee
> > responded that they had not allotted time in their schedule to
> > answer that question, so they would not do so.
>
> Having read today through the C9X 19 January Working Paper, I can see
> several potential compatability problems with C++. At this point, I'm
> wondering if "as close to C, but no closer" is going to be
> impractical.

True, there are a couple of dozen or so incompatibilities.  (I'm
currently compiling a list; see the incomplete doc at:
 http://david.tribble.com/text/cdiffs.htm .)

But several C9X features will almost undoubtedly make it into the
next C++ standard, if for no other reason than it's fairly easy
for vendors that write both C and C++ compilers to keep their
compilers more alike:

 o  long long int
 o  binary float literals
 o  _Pragma
 o  __null__
 o  enum X { A, };
 o  __VA_ARGS__
 o  Designated initializers
 o  restrict
 o  <stdint.h>, <inttypes.h>
 o  VLAs  (probably the hardest to add to C++)

Other C9X features are more difficult to merge into C++, I fear:

 o  Flexible array members
 o  _Bool
 o  _Complex, _Imaginary

-- David R. Tribble, 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              ]

Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote...
> The C++ committee is interested, too -- interested enough that back
> in 1997, they officially asked the C committee if there was anything
> in C9X that would be difficult to implement in C++.  The C committee
> responded that they had not allotted time in their schedule to
> answer that question, so they would not do so.

Sigh...

Having read today through the C9X 19 January Working Paper, I can see
several potential compatability problems with C++. At this point, I'm
wondering if "as close to C, but no closer" is going to be impractical.

--
  *     Scott Robert Ladd
  *
  *     Coyote Gulch Productions - http://www.coyotegulch.com
  *     GameLore - http://www.gamelore.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              ]

I'm very impressed with the proposed C9X revision; do plans exist to
incorporate features of C9X (after it's final, of course) into C++? Is there
a schedule for a revision to C++?

And I'm also interested in comments about the compataibility of C9X with
C++'s current form. I'm wondering how the new numeric support -- especially
the complex types -- will mesh with C++'s class libraries.

--
  *     Scott Robert Ladd
  *
  *     Coyote Gulch Productions - http://www.coyotegulch.com
  *     GameLore - http://www.gamelore.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              ]