• Walter Bright (3/3) Apr 23 2008 Here's a feature-by-feature comparison of what's slated for C++0x vs
• bearophile (9/13) Apr 24 2008 A very nice list.
• Gide Nwawudu (5/8) Apr 30 2008 ACCU talk on the new features of C++0x is available on Goggle video.
• Jason House (8/12) Apr 30 2008 I'd love to see this info in a table...

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Here's a feature-by-feature comparison of what's slated for C++0x vs 
what's already in D:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cpp0x.html

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Walter Bright:

Here's a feature-by-feature comparison of what's slated for C++0x vs what's
already in D:<

A very nice list.
C++ is a very complex language, so sometimes D designers may choose to not put
in D few of the most complex, tricky, or difficult to use features of C++.
Sometimes a bit less power may be better.


Adding extended integer types to C++ N1988: D has the cent and ucent types for
128 bit integral types (not implemented in dmd or gdc). There is no proposal
for other extended integral types, but it's hard to imagine a justification for
adding more to the core language.<

I don't see where cent and ucent types can be useful.
But I think a built-in compiler-optimized multiprecision integer type may be
useful in many situations, for example where you need more safety in integer
operations.


(monomorphic) Lambda expressions and closures for C++ N2550: D has lambda
expressions and closures.<


(but it requires a bit more type inferencing).


Initializer lists N2531: D has struct literals, array literals, and associative
array literals.<

But they have some problems still :-)

Bye,
bearophile

Gide Nwawudu <gide btinternet.com> writes:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:46:40 -0700, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

Here's a feature-by-feature comparison of what's slated for C++0x vs 
what's already in D:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cpp0x.html

ACCU talk on the new features of C++0x is available on Goggle video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2165553273160626549

Gide

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:

 Here's a feature-by-feature comparison of what's slated for C++0x vs
 what's already in D:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cpp0x.html

I'd love to see this info in a table...

Columns:
  Proposal ID
  Part of D? (Yes, No, TBD, N/A)
  Proposal Description

... and just like the comparison page, each item in the part of D column is
a hyperlink to more detail (if appropriate).