Re: copy smaller array into bigger array?
On Aug 18, 12:41 pm, Francesco <entul...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 Ago, 10:11, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 17, 7:44 pm, Francesco <entul...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
After that, yes, I definitely mistaken the meaning of
current/working draft. I'll get the current standard as soon
as possible - so then I must get C++98, if I got your sentence
right.
The current standard is formally C++03, but that's really just
corrections (no fundamental changes) to C++98. The next version
will be significantly different, although exactly how is still
being debated. The document you cited is a draft of this next
version; it tends to change quite a lot. (For example, the
document you cited has concepts, which finally won't be in the
next version.)
In another post, in another thread, I've said something like
that the only thing that interested me was seeing things
working, but now I'm really getting interested into things
like "what is *expected* to work" and "what works *breaking*
the expectations".
It's a fairly delicate issue. On one hand, we have a standard
which says more or less (mostly more) exactly what must work,
what shouldn't work and what is not defined. On the other hand,
we have real compilers, and in the end, they're what we have to
deal with: if your code doesn't compile, the fact that the
standard says it's legal doesn't advance your project, and in
almost all real projects, we end up having to use things which
aren't covered by the standard: threads, sockets, GUI
interfaces... Still, I like to think of the standard as part of
the contract between the compiler vendor and me, even if the
compiler vendors often ignore certain parts of the standard
(e.g. export).
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34