November, 2003

  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    C++/CLI keywords: Under the hood

    • 3 Comments
    C++/CLI specifies several keywords as extensions to ISO C++. The way they are handled falls into five major categories, where only the first impacts the meaning of existing ISO C++ programs. 1. Outright reserved words As of this writing...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Why "gcnew T" instead of "new (gc) T"?

    • 2 Comments
    On comp.lang.c++.moderated , Peter Lundblad wrote: I also don't see the need for gcnew. Why not use placement new, i.e.: T^ h = new (CLI::gc) T(14); This would require an extension allows placement new overloads to return something other...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    C++/CLI candidate base document now available

    • 4 Comments
    Today the C++/CLI candidate base document was posted, and it's freely available for download . This is the spec that Microsoft is contributing to the newly-formed ECMA TC39/TG5 standards committee for consideration for the C++/CLI standards...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Why R^ instead of cli::handle?

    • 4 Comments
    Nicola Musatti asked the following excellent question: The hat symbol and gcnew could be replaced with a template like syntax, e.g. cli::handle<R> r = cli::gcnew<R>(); I agree that those are alternatives. Everyone, including...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Why "ref class X", not just "class X : System::Object"?

    • 2 Comments
    On comp.lang.c++.moderated , Andrew Browne wrote: The goals of the C++/CLI proposal are good ones, I think, but I wonder if it would be possible to achieve them without (most of) the new keywords and semantics? For example instead of: ...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Q: Why keywords instead of __keywords? A: We already tried __keywords; they failed.

    • 9 Comments
    Last week on comp.lang.c++.moderated , Nicola Musatti wondered why C++/CLI would use keywords that don't follow the __keyword naming convention for conforming extensions: The standard already provides a way to avoid conflicts when introducing...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Q: Aren't C++ pointers alone enough to "handle" GC? A: No.

    • 5 Comments
    A few days ago on news:comp.lang.c++.moderated , Nicola Musatti wrote: As for GC, pure implementations exist. [that add no new extensions to ISO C++] Not for a pure definition of "pure," they don't. :-) To explain why C++ pointers...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Q: Could the CLI binding become required? A: No.

    • 0 Comments
    A few days ago on news:comp.lang.c++.moderated , "Chris" asked: Here is a paranoid question: Is there a possible future step, where compiling C++ on a Microsoft plaftform becomes impossible _without_ using the CLI binding? No. Doing...
  • Herb Sutter's Blog

    Help | About

    • 3 Comments
    Welcome! My primary day job these days is that I'm an Architect on the Visual C++ team at Microsoft, currently responsible for leading the redesign of the C++ Managed Extensions for .NET (aka "Managed C++"). I also do a fair amount...
Page 1 of 1 (9 items)