Update to C++0x feature table

The diff is attached.

> I used the following sources:
> Bjarne - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
> Scott Meyers - http://www.aristeia.com/C++0x/C++0xFeatureAvailability.htm
> Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x

Some additional items and different [not useful] organizations of the features are here:

http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

> Things I like about my changes:
> 1. Near complete listing of core language changes.
> 2. Links to STL implementation status pages.
> 3. I like the classification of features.
> Things I don't like about my changes:
> 1. I would love to provide links into the current draft for each feature,
> but I couldn't find a way to link into the draft PDF.
> 2. I wish there were a better way to classify features (as some are
> cross-cutting).
> Indifferent:
> 1. Draft proposal documents. I included and expanded them because they were
> there before.
>
> There is still one extra thing that I haven't done, which is to provide some
> sort of desired priority, or if that is too difficult, some way to indicate
> dependent relationships between features.

A few paper numbers to add:
* sizeof on members without object instance is N2150, 5.1.1p10
* nullptr is also N2214
* char16_t and char32_t are part of N2249

Other than that, it would be most helpful if current status were filled in so we all know what needs to be done. In my ideal world, as the status in each box is changed, a revision number is put in there since "releases" are infrequent.

Somebody more familiar with the draft should comment if any items are missing.

I’ve attached a second patch. Could someone with privs commit it? Also see inline comments below.

The diff is attached.
I used the following sources:
Bjarne - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
Scott Meyers - http://www.aristeia.com/C++0x/C++0xFeatureAvailability.htm
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x

Some additional items and different [not useful] organizations of the
features are here:

http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

Things I like about my changes:

  1. Near complete listing of core language changes.
  2. Links to STL implementation status pages.
  3. I like the classification of features.
    Things I don’t like about my changes:
  4. I would love to provide links into the current draft for each
    feature,
    but I couldn’t find a way to link into the draft PDF.
  5. I wish there were a better way to classify features (as some are
    cross-cutting).
    Indifferent:
  6. Draft proposal documents. I included and expanded them because
    they were
    there before.

There is still one extra thing that I haven’t done, which is to
provide some
sort of desired priority, or if that is too difficult, some way to
indicate
dependent relationships between features.

A few paper numbers to add:

  • sizeof on members without object instance is N2150, 5.1.1p10
  • nullptr is also N2214
  • char16_t and char32_t are part of N2249

Other than that, it would be most helpful if current status were
filled in so we all know what needs to be done.

Agreed. Alas, I don’t know enough to handle that, except for perhaps the type deduction stuff.

In my ideal world, as
the status in each box is changed, a revision number is put in there
since “releases” are infrequent.

I had the same thought originally, but wasn’t sure how to fit that information in with everything else. I decided to separate the explanation of test status to another paragraph, and just stick an “rXXXXXX” in the complete block. I figure that people could discern what that was for when they saw it.

Somebody more familiar with the draft should comment if any items are
missing.

There are sure to be some things I missed… anyone else looking?

cxx_status_html.patch (18.8 KB)

This is great, Michael, thanks!

I made a few edits, dropping long double (which was part of C++98/03) and new function declarator syntax (which isn’t in C++0x), updating status, etc., and committed as r122315.

  • Doug

By new function declaration, I was meaning the trailing return type as in:

template <typename T, typename U>
auto func (T t, U u) → decltype(t*u);

Ah, I see. I’ve put back that row, but with only the link to the late-specified return type paper. Thanks!

  • Doug