Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dragan, post: 3968727"] I know. Where is "here"? I thought that N2960 was pretty close to the "current state of the art" given that it has a date of October 25, 2009 on it. Prior to downloading N2960, I had N2800, so surely I'm a lot closer to the final standard than I was. OK, I see the disconnect now: You are talking about the current standard and I asked about C++0x. The current standard does not concern me. Wasn't the current one instituted in 2003? That's why I said it couldn't have those as a practicality and for most purposes it was "correct enough". I'm just trying to understand it, not quote it. I kinda/sorta knew that. Someone told me that before. That when I make a default constructor private so that default construction is not possible, that all bets are off for it being a POD (?). In the current standard or the draft? I was under the impression (and so is at least one other poster in this thread) that PODs can have "convenience constructors", as he put it. And how can someone do that? Indeed it would make it useless! I didn't get that information from reading the draft. Is it there or did I just skim over it I wonder. It just seems weird, probably for lack of my knowledge of the intricacies/subtleties. An example would be worth a thousand words. Someone should pen "a roadmap to the C++ standard, with examples" book. Note that some "open" softwares have their licenses expressed also in layman's terms, something I have found not only useful, but interesting. Yes! That's really my concern: where C ends and C++ starts. Nor I, for I thought they were the same thing! When I started this thread, I included "aggregate" in my quest to understand. Then I felt that POD was what I was really after. Live and learn! Now I think you just told me that "layout compatibility" is the thing and that makes "POD" nebulous! Errrrgh! [/QUOTE]

Verification