Do you use C++11?

[MorleyDev]

Not quite. They can be emulated with preprocessor macros (and they are, at least in Boost.Function).

I think the actual implementation uses variadic macros but I thought it wrapped them inside a huge set of template specialisations (generated by script) to hide them from the end user since they look silly ugly compared to the very clean implementation variadic templates give you. Macros are the last resort of last resorts in C++ so not having to use them is sweet

[Lee R]

I think the actual implementation uses variadic macros [...]

No, it recursively includes itself. Besides, variadic macros are in fact preprocessor macros, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention them.

[...]I thought it wrapped them inside a huge set of template specialisations (generated by script)[...]

That description is somewhat inside out. The macros are used to stamp out the overloads.

The nice macro-free headers you see are generated by the preprocessor (using the Boost.Wave preprocessor, I believe). They are then included to improve compile times (i.e. it has nothing to do with how ugly macros are). In fact, if you redefine the maximum overload arity to some value greater than what is provided by the preprocessed headers (or otherwise disable them), the overloads will be generated on-the-fly (no need for scripts at all).

[VPellen]

Up until ten minutes ago, I'd been feeling kind of lukewarm towards C++11. I'd been curious, and I expected to take it up sooner or later, but nothing really forced my hand.

Ten minutes ago, I learned that C++11 supports member initialization in the class declaration, ie:

Code: [Select]

class C
{
    public:
        int x = 10;
};

I'm turning that compiler flag on, and I'm never going back.

[MorleyDev]

huh, interesting. I though the implementation basically did

template<typename T> struct function { };
template<typename R, typename A, typename B> struct function<R (A,B)> : real_function<R, TYPELIST(A,B)>
template<typename R, typename A, typename B,typename C> struct function<R (A,B,C)> : real_function<R, TYPELIST(A,B,C)>
template<typename R, typename A, typename B,typename C,typename D> struct function<R (A,B,C,D)> : real_function<R, TYPELIST(A,B,C,D)>
...

and so-on in that matter for a silly number of implementations. Maybe I'm thinking of Loki or something else but this is definitely a way it can be simulated...

Either way, my point that it's all made infinitely simpler and cleaner looking by variadic templates remains

[Lee R]

Either way, my point that it's all made infinitely simpler and cleaner looking by variadic templates remains

It was never in question.

[EDIT]

I didn't see the last part of the following sentence, I'm guessing you added it later:

Maybe I'm thinking of Loki or something else but this is definitely a way it can be simulated...

Not really. The technique you showed has a fixed maximum arity and thus is not variadic, even if the TYPELIST macro is.

[/EDIT]

[Mjonir]

Thanks everyone for the useful links about C++11. I read a lot about it today, and I'm already using it. I jumped on the unordered_map/set, the ranged based for and the "auto" keyword

[TechRogue]

Ten minutes ago, I learned that C++11 supports member initialization in the class declaration, ie:

Code: [Select]

class C
{
    public:
        int x = 10;
};

 :shock:

 

[gsaurus]

I read about C++11 features a while ago and was amazed with it, started using right away. But so far I only use unordered_map/set, forward_list, the memory library, and some features like "enum class" and RValue references. Lambda expressions is something I want to try sometime but I didn't need it yet. I think I used something from the functional lib once too, that's something I definitely have to look better and start using more often.

[Bigz]

Does someone already tried to use the std::thread and has some feedback about it ?

[Nexus]

I think std::thread heavily inspired from boost::thread.

Unfortunately, MSVC 2010 doesn't support it (like many other useful C++11 features ). However the 2011 version should provide threads, mutexes, atomics, futures etc.

[Dalini]

Too bad we'll have to wait at least a year before we can see the major compilers (GCC, Clang, MSVC) support all the features of the C++11 :-(

[VPellen]

I've spent the last few days cramming C++11 stuff into my brain. Very exciting. For those who want to get a better understanding of C++11, the following links have been extremely helpful for me:

http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/GoingNative-2012
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp
http://code.google.com/p/mingw-builds/

In order, they are:

1) The C++11 FAQ written by Stroustrup himself
2) A recent event regarding C++11, lots of videos, VERY informative, if nothing else watch the keynote by Stroustrup on C++11 style
3) A C++ reference which contains some details on the newer C++11 libraries
4) Links to more up-to-date MinGW builds, for windows developers who aren't so fond of VC++. Look for 4.7, it's precompiled and should basically work as-is.

[gsaurus]

Something I feel strage is the naming convention on pointers. unique_ptr, shared_ptr, weak_ptr, ok, all using underscore, then we have nullptr.

[Groogy]

Something I feel strage is the naming convention on pointers. unique_ptr, shared_ptr, weak_ptr, ok, all using underscore, then we have nullptr.

That's a constant and not a type.

I think it is even a keyword? Or am I wrong?

[OniLinkPlus]

Something I feel strage is the naming convention on pointers. unique_ptr, shared_ptr, weak_ptr, ok, all using underscore, then we have nullptr.

That's a constant and not a type.

I think it is even a keyword? Or am I wrong?

It's a keyword.