• Mark Evans <Mark_member pathlink.com> Nov 29 2002
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Nov 29 2002

http://www.cuj.com/experts/2002/sutter.htm

"...There are still some C99 features, however, that C++0x cannot easily adopt
in their C99 form, because conflicting facilities already exist in C++98..."


So right now I would take STL namespace support and let the C99 / C0x stuff
drift a while in its place.  Namespaces are what people use *today*.

Mark

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:as98i7$2853$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 http://www.cuj.com/experts/2002/sutter.htm
 "...There are still some C99 features, however, that C++0x cannot easily


 in their C99 form, because conflicting facilities already exist in


 So right now I would take STL namespace support and let the C99 / C0x


 drift a while in its place.  Namespaces are what people use *today*.


I've been working on the namespace support, it's getting a lot better. ADL
lookup is still nowhere, though.