In article <MATT.95Aug4094547@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>,
   matt@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) wrote:
<...>
>gcc is the only compiler I know of that supports
>the new rule about the scope of variables declared in for loops:
>it'll be amusing to see how much code breaks in 2.7.0.

Metrowerks' latest Mac release also supports the scoping rule for for loops.
Amusing is not the term I would have used for tracking down all ofthe misused
indices.

Scott Ellsworth          fuz@deltanet.com
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>Metaware.  There's also some very incomplete namespace support
>in gcc 2.7.0.  gcc is the only compiler I know of that supports
>the new rule about the scope of variables declared in for loops:
>it'll be amusing to see how much code breaks in 2.7.0.

Quite a lot of code breaks, actually (I can't think of a single publicly
available C++ program of nontrivial size that did *not* break), which is
why g++ 2.7.0 has a flag (-fno-for-scope) to revert to the old behavior.
It's certainly the #1 reported "bug" on the g++ bug group, despite
warnings in the distribution and requests not to report this new feature
as a bug.

--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Anagrams for "information superhighway": Enormous hairy pig with fan
      A rough whimper of insanity

In article <3vkrcm$j3t@erinews.ericsson.se>, Robert Buren
<erarobu@era-t.ericsson.se> wrote:

> I've seen the question being asked before, but I don't recall seeing
> any relevant answers:
>
> Which is the most standard C++ compiler (today)??
>
> I would like to experiment and learn the newest standard extensions as early
> as possible. I'm not going to write production code, so I don't really
> care about incompatibilities with other compilers, lack of optimization
> and stuff like that. And I _definitely_ don't care about whether the IDE
> is good or not!
>
> I have access to most Windows and unix stuff, but if the answer is a Macintosh
> compiler (fat chance) please let me know anyway.

All relevant C++ compilers support templates and exceptions...
I think Borland and Symantec on the PC side both have RTTI,
and an implementation of Symantec on the Mac does as well. >:P
I don't know of any widely-used compiler supporting namespaces.

--
Chris Thomas, ckt@best.com

In article <ckt-0408950105470001@ckt.vip.best.com> ckt@best.com (Chris Thomas) writes:

> All relevant C++ compilers support templates and exceptions...
> I think Borland and Symantec on the PC side both have RTTI,
> and an implementation of Symantec on the Mac does as well. >:P
> I don't know of any widely-used compiler supporting namespaces.

Metaware.  There's also some very incomplete namespace support
in gcc 2.7.0.  gcc is the only compiler I know of that supports
the new rule about the scope of variables declared in for loops:
it'll be amusing to see how much code breaks in 2.7.0.
--
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."

I've seen the question being asked before, but I don't recall seeing
any relevant answers:

Which is the most standard C++ compiler (today)??

I would like to experiment and learn the newest standard extensions as early
as possible. I'm not going to write production code, so I don't really
care about incompatibilities with other compilers, lack of optimization
and stuff like that. And I _definitely_ don't care about whether the IDE
is good or not!

I have access to most Windows and unix stuff, but if the answer is a Macintosh
compiler (fat chance) please let me know anyway.

Thanks,

  Robert

--
     Robert Buren
     erarobu@era-t.ericsson.se