Issue with Pre-Redmond Mailing

[David Abrahams]

The committee's Pre-Redmond mailing is out; you can peruse the papers
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004. For
anyone interested in N1691, "Explicit Namespaces", an administrative
SNAFU seems to have mangled it. A pristine version is available at
http://www.boost-consulting.com/writing/n1691.html

Cheers,

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

The committee's Pre-Redmond mailing is out; you can peruse the papers
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004. For
anyone interested in N1691, "Explicit Namespaces", an administrative
SNAFU seems to have mangled it. A pristine version is available at
http://www.boost-consulting.com/writing/n1691.html

The long long issue, although in C99 and C++/CLI current draft, I think
it must become long64 or int64.

 

[Stephen Lamb]

The committee's Pre-Redmond mailing is out; you can peruse the papers
at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004. For
anyone interested in N1691, "Explicit Namespaces", an administrative
SNAFU seems to have mangled it. A pristine version is available at
http://www.boost-consulting.com/writing/n1691.html

I'm not sure if you meant to leave off the return type in the declaration of
tie in example 2. This shows up in both places mentioned above.

// Connect p2 to the output of p1
tie(pipe const& p1, pipe& p2);

Did you mean?

// Connect p2 to the output of p1
void tie(pipe const& p1, pipe& p2);


Not that this matters a whole lot to your points.