3 ms·
Sure, where it is possible, C++ constructs (templates, inlines, constexpr, ...) should be used instead. However, one very important bit, where we (sadly) are n
by albertzeyer 12y ago
Sure, where it is possible, C++ constructs (templates, inlines, constexpr, ...) should be used instead.
However, one very important bit, where we (sadly) are not really moving away from: The include system. This is still handled all by the preprocessor.
- atilaneves 12y agoWe're moving away from it, it's just not done yet. I'd be surprised if C++17 doesn't have a module system, especially after the clang guys implemented one as a proof-of-concept.
- 72deluxe 12y agoInteresting! Do you know if there's any proposals or papers detailing the idea anywhere?
- milliams 12y agoHere's a recent one http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4047.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n404... Also see http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html
- pjmlp 12y agoThis is one of them, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4047.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n404... The other one is the clang one http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]