Current ISO C++ standard is ISO C++ 1998. Am I correct ?

When is the next standard expected ? What is the URL for knowing it ?

Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
standard library ?.(just as data structures and algorithms were
included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).

Kindly clarify.

Thanks
V.Subramanian

subramanian100in@yahoo.com wrote:
> Current ISO C++ standard is ISO C++ 1998. Am I correct ?

No, the latest standard is 2003.

> When is the next standard expected ? What is the URL for knowing it ?

Committee home: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

> Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
> standard library ?

No.

>.(just as data structures and algorithms were
> included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).
>
> Kindly clarify.

Kindly find out for yourself.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

In article <05112d9b-f69e-4be4-a370-b0e8cfc2b616
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, subramanian100in@yahoo.com says...
> Current ISO C++ standard is ISO C++ 1998. Am I correct ?

No -- the current standard is dated 2003. Most of the differences
between the 1998 standard and the 2003 standard are fairly minor though
-- most simply change the wording to actually require what was intended
to start with. A few new requirements were added (e.g. std::vector must
use contiguous storage) but these were always true in practice anyway.

> When is the next standard expected ? What is the URL for knowing it ?

The committee is trying for 2009. The committee home page is at:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

> Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
> standard library ?.(just as data structures and algorithms were
> included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).

I think it's quite unlikely. There isn't any network support in the
current draft, and the committee stopped accepting new features around a
year ago. In theory it could still happen, but only if it was forced to,
such as a country making it clear that they would only vote in favor of
the standard if this was added. Some such requirements have been known
for quite a while, and I doubt anybody would add such a thing at this
late date.

--
Later,
Jerry.

The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
>> Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
>> standard library ?.(just as data structures and algorithms were
>> included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).
>
> I think it's quite unlikely. There isn't any network support in the
> current draft, and the committee stopped accepting new features around a
> year ago. In theory it could still happen, but only if it was forced to,
> such as a country making it clear that they would only vote in favor of
> the standard if this was added. Some such requirements have been known
> for quite a while, and I doubt anybody would add such a thing at this
> late date.


So what will be new in the current standard apart from some new algorithms?

Will some C99 junk abominations like built in _complex, long long, etc
make into the standard?

Corrected some text:

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>>
>>> Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
>>> standard library ?.(just as data structures and algorithms were
>>> included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).
>>
>> I think it's quite unlikely. There isn't any network support in the
>> current draft, and the committee stopped accepting new features around
>> a year ago. In theory it could still happen, but only if it was forced
>> to, such as a country making it clear that they would only vote in
>> favor of the standard if this was added. Some such requirements have
>> been known for quite a while, and I doubt anybody would add such a
>> thing at this late date.


So what will be new in the current standard apart from some new algorithms?

Will some C99 junk like built in _complex, long long, etc make into the
standard?

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> [..]
> Will some C99 junk like built in _complex, long long, etc make into
> the standard?

Are you *afraid* to get a copy and find out for yourself?

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

On 2008-01-15 11:55, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Corrected some text:
>
> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will it contain libraries for network programming as part of the
>>>> standard library ?.(just as data structures and algorithms were
>>>> included as part ISO C++ 1998 standard library).
>>>
>>> I think it's quite unlikely. There isn't any network support in the
>>> current draft, and the committee stopped accepting new features around
>>> a year ago. In theory it could still happen, but only if it was forced
>>> to, such as a country making it clear that they would only vote in
>>> favor of the standard if this was added. Some such requirements have
>>> been known for quite a while, and I doubt anybody would add such a
>>> thing at this late date.
>
>
> So what will be new in the current standard apart from some new algorithms?
>
> Will some C99 junk like built in _complex, long long, etc make into the
> standard?

C++ have std::comples so it does not need any other. What is wrong with
long long? For more information about what will be in the next standard
take a look at Wikipedia.

--
Erik Wikström

Erik Wikström wrote:
>
>> So what will be new in the current standard apart from some new algorithms?
>>
>> Will some C99 junk like built in _complex, long long, etc make into the
>> standard?
>
> C++ have std::comples so it does not need any other. What is wrong with
> long long? For more information about what will be in the next standard
> take a look at Wikipedia.


Yes I know C++ has std::complex and focuses on providing abstraction
facilities which can be used to define what we need. However so far C++
has also been "a better C".

C99 took the way of providing "exotic" built-in types (with exotic names
I would say, like "_complex") ignoring the abstraction aims and ideals
of C++.

Regarding long long well, the known stuff are bothering me, the type
system rules are broken in code considering that long is the larger
built-in type. Also long long is too long to type. I think that the
existing C++03 built in integer types are sufficient and we do not need
long long.

But as far as I can understand, long long will be included in C++0x/1x,
mainly because of a sense for C compatibility. But I think we must
realise that C and C++ have no common future, so I think long long
should be dropped since we do not need that.