Sign in
Herb Sutter's Blog
Translate This Page
Translate this page
Powered by
Microsoft® Translator
Options
Email Blog Author
RSS for posts
Atom
RSS for comments
OK
Search
Tags
No tags have been created or used yet.
Archive
Archives
October 2004
(1)
September 2004
(4)
August 2004
(2)
July 2004
(4)
December 2003
(3)
November 2003
(9)
Posts
Subscribe via RSS
Sort by:
Most Recent
|
Most Views
|
Most Comments
Excerpt View
|
Full Post View
Herb Sutter's Blog
C++/CLI keywords: Under the hood
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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 "ref class X", not just "class X : System::Object"?
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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: Aren't C++ pointers alone enough to "handle" GC? A: No.
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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
C++/CLI candidate base document now available
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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 "gcnew T" instead of "new (gc) T"?
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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
Why R^ instead of cli::handle
?
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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
Q: Why keywords instead of __keywords? A: We already tried __keywords; they failed.
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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: Could the CLI binding become required? A: No.
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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
Posted
over 10 years ago
by
hsutter
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)