From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ce2c6805ad778f71d5f1561b31056713@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:37:27 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc
In-Reply-To: <6.0.2.0.0.20060411131957.01cacad0@pop.monitorbm.co.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 349913b8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

the c++0x page kills me.  their trick is as old and specialized as=20

	A =3D =CF=80r=E2=81=B2

sure their example looks slick, but there's a lot of sophistication lurki=
ng
in that simple-looking factor, =CF=80, or in their case, auto.  and it wo=
uld be too trivial
to find another example that wouldn't look so simple.

- erik

On Mon Apr 10 20:31:36 CDT 2006, andrew.simmons@monitorbm.co.nz wrote:
>=20
> >There's apparently very good money in knowing these little
> >esoteric bits about C++ though :).
>=20
> For a depressingly typical example the following site is enlightening:
> http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/
>=20
> The good news is that things are going to get a whole lot more complica=
ted,=20
> because, obviously, the way to make C++ easier to use is to add more fe=
atures:
> http://www.artima.com/cppsource/cpp0xP.html
>=20
> Are there any plans to add a -Wtpop switch to the Plan 9 compilers?
>=20