«

(Steve Clamage) writes:

> jive wrote:
>>>"Rolf Magnus" <> wrote in message news:cgk967$soo$00
>>>$...
>>>jive wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The last C++ standard version is from 2003, but except for a few
>>>>minor corrections, it's the same as C++98.
>>>
>>>AFAIK there is only a draft, as the standardisation process is still
>>>incomplete and new revision of the C++ standard is supposedly due this
>>>fall.
>>>
>>>See:
>>>http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueD...talogueDetail?
>>>CSNUMBER=38110
>> Strange.. I found no mention about this on
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ and this
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...2004/n1638.pdf outdates
>> the one available on the ISO site.
>> Could someone comment on that?
>> - jive
>
> The C++ Committee worked on addressing errors in the original 1998 C++
> standard (see this newsgroup's FAQ list about Defect Reports), and is
> now working on a future C++ standard.
>
> A Technical Report (TR1) was released containing fixes to Defect

I could've sworn that was called Techical *Corrigendum* 1 ... Am I
wrong?

> Reports. The TR was folded into a new version of the C++ standard,
> dated 2003. That is now the official standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003). It
> is available for purchase from ISO (at the above addres), from
> www.ansi.org, and from www.incits.org.
[snip]

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]

llewelly wrote:
> (Steve Clamage) writes:
>
>>The C++ Committee worked on addressing errors in the original 1998 C++
>>standard (see this newsgroup's FAQ list about Defect Reports), and is
>>now working on a future C++ standard.
>>
>>A Technical Report (TR1) was released containing fixes to Defect
>
>
> I could've sworn that was called Techical *Corrigendum* 1 ... Am I
> wrong?

You are correct. I mis-spoke. The correction is TC1, folded into the
2003 version of the standard.


---
Steve Clamage,

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]

Andre Heinen wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:25:37 -0400, Will Twentyman
> <> wrote:
>
>>Andre Heinen wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Aug 2004 05:13:38 -0700, (TuPLaD) wrote:
>>>
>>>>#include "iostream"
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>I think that if he used #include "iostream.h" it would work.
>><snip>
>
>
> His mistake was to use gcc instead of g++. I have the same
> system: when linked correctly, the program works fine with
> "iostream". With "iostream.h", it works fine too, but the
> compiler gives a warning.
>
> What puzzles me is that I thought it was illegal to use double
> quotes to include standard headers. I'd like someone who knows
> better than me to confirm.

According to what I've got handy (Stroustrup), double quotes include
from the current directory, <> grabs from the standard include directory
and should not have ".h".

--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net