 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:19:04 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> There is currently as far as I know only one C++ compiler vendor that
>> even claims to implement the full standard.
>
> Does the count change if we disregard export templates?
I think it might, but "claims to implement the full standard" is not the
same as "claims to be fully standards-compliant" which of course is not
the same as "is fully standards-compliant".
Strictly speaking, it is impossible to be fully compliant to ISO
14882-1998 since the standard itself contains self-contradictions. I think
most (hopefully all) of those have been dealt with for the upcoming
revision of the standard though.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
>> I clicked on the big shiny button that says "toggle breakpoint". It looks
>> like a big grey square, and sure enough, when you click it, a big grey
>> square appears at that line of the source code. Only by accident did I
>> discover that you have to click on this breakpoint to make a big red dot
>> appear on it, and *then* it will do something. (It is unclear to me what
>> the hell use an inactive breakpoint is, but still...)
>
> Odd. You can also just press F9 to make a breakpoint.
>
> Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated
> condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back
> later.
But it's also "useful" to make the default an ACTIVE breakpoint!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Inactive breakpoints are usually useful when you've added a complicated
>> condition to a breakpoint and you want to turn it off but get it back
>> later.
>
> Wait - you can have conditional breakpoints?
Or you can enable/disable them by hand while debugging.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> Ewww, someone got Visual Basic in my C++.
Hey, when somebody starts writing "DIM" statements, *then* you can
worry! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
>
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
"You cannot hide forever, Orchid. Give yourself to the dark side..."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> "You cannot hide forever, Orchid. Give yourself to the dark side..."
NEVER!!! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> I think it might, but "claims to implement the full standard" is not the
> same as "claims to be fully standards-compliant" which of course is not
> the same as "is fully standards-compliant".
I think a lenient way of interpreting "fully standards-compliant" is
that the features of the C++ standard that the compiler implements are
implemented *exactly* like the standard specifies, and there are no
non-standard extensions (or, at the very least, there's a compiler option
to make it consider using them an error).
Many of the most modern C++ compilers implement almost all the C++98
standard features except export templates.
> Strictly speaking, it is impossible to be fully compliant to ISO
> 14882-1998 since the standard itself contains self-contradictions.
Care to give a concrete example?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I just installed Micro$oft Visual C++ 2008 Experss Edition.
>
> My God... what have I done?? O_O
>
Welcome to the dark side. Mwhahaah hahaha... hahha uhhh...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Definitely no worse than me. I installed XP on a spare box yesterday
> just to play Spore.
Spore. heh. Opinions about the game are pretty polarized. Either people
love it or hate it. I'm in the "Love It" camp. Eats away countless
hours. So many paths to take ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Oh, and that just for creating CLI programs. You can probably forget
> about creating win32 programs. The learning curve is steep. No, it's not
> steep. It's a vertical wall.
Yeah, what Warp said. Especially for Windows programming. MFC makes the
wall a little less vertical, but still pretty steep. Of course, Express
doesn't have MFC, so you're stuck with the Platform SDK.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
