C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed initial Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Matthias Hofmann Guest Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed initial Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. -- Matthias Hofmann Anvil-Soft, CEO http://www.anvil-soft.com - The Creators of Toilet Tycoon http://www.anvil-soft.de - Die Macher des Klomanagers --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Guest Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini "Matthias Hofmann" wrote: Quote: Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. A third option is possible: copy initialization from a default-initialized temporary is technically required, and the existence of an accessible copy constructor is therefore required, but the copy can be elided as an optimization. I'm not saying that the current standard clearly requires (or prohibits) this; just that it's a possible resolution to the DR. --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Alberto Ganesh Barbati Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: Quote: Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; If you read carefully 8.5, you will see that the, despite the name, copy-initialization does not necessarily require a copy constructor. That is true for both arrays and non-arrays. This is a common misunderstanding. There was recently a thread about this on comp.lang.c++.moderate. Quote: However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." You are referring to an old version of the standard. The 2003 version reads differently: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be value-initialized (8.5)." Notice the "value-initialized" instead of the "default-initialized". Naively speaking, value-initialization is either default-initialization or zero-initialization according to the type of the object and/or the presence of user defined constructors. BTW: Always refer to the most recent version of the standard when submitting defect reports! Quote: Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. I agree that the name copy-initialization is confusing and the whole initialization process is in some cases complex and possibly unintuitive, but apart from that, the standard is very clear, IMHO. Quote: The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. As we saw above, the array member is going to be value-initialized. Such process, clearly described in the standard, is performed directly on the target object and does not require the creation/copy of a temporary. HTH, Ganesh --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Jens Theisen Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:07 am    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote: Quote: If you read carefully 8.5, you will see that the, despite the name, copy-initialization does not necessarily require a copy constructor. I just read it and it seems that X x = X(); doesn't despite the common belief that it does. Am I reading this correctly? Quote: You are referring to an old version of the standard. The 2003 version reads differently Interesting. Is this the draft of the new C++0x, or indeed an update of C++98? I would have thought that this is clearly distinguished and DRs for C++98 still refer to the old standard. Quote: I agree that the name copy-initialization is confusing and the whole initialization process is in some cases complex and possibly unintuitive, but apart from that, the standard is very clear, IMHO. The old standard was contradicting itself, IMHO, but can only be interpreted in one sensible way as I see it (that being the latter correction of Matthias' DR). Quote: As we saw above, the array member is going to be value-initialized. My standard doesn't contain that term, I guess it's a C++0x thing? Jens --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Greg Herlihy Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:05 am    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini "Matthias Hofmann" wrote: Quote: Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. §8.5/15 clause 6 provides the final, missing step needed to complete the above analysis. To recap the line of reasoning so far: T array[0] = {}; is equivalent to: T array[0] = { T() }; which in turn can be interpreted as: T array[0] = T(); which in turn becomes: T t = T(); At this point, §8.5/15 provides a dramatic, surprising and satisfying dénouement: it turns out that a copy initialization in which the class of the source object is identical to - or derived from - the class of the destination object is - in fact - a direct initialization (for all practical purposes): T t(T()); There we have it. To answer the question: there is no copy constructor needed for T because no copy initialization actually takes place. As a further consequence, there is no defect in the Standard regarding this question, since a (very) close reading of a very recent draft of the Standard does provide the answer. Greg --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top kanze Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Greg Herlihy wrote: Quote: "Matthias Hofmann" wrote: Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. §8.5/15 clause 6 provides the final, missing step needed to complete the above analysis. To recap the line of reasoning so far: One of the lines of reasoning. The one that puts the statement in §8.5/12 ahead of the one in 8.5.1/7. Quote: T array[0] = {}; is equivalent to: T array[0] = { T() }; which in turn can be interpreted as: T array[0] = T(); which in turn becomes: T t = T(); At this point, §8.5/15 provides a dramatic, surprising and satisfying dénouement: it turns out that a copy initialization in which the class of the source object is identical to - or derived from - the class of the destination object is - in fact - a direct initialization (for all practical purposes): T t(T()); I'm aware of that, but what does it change? Quote: There we have it. To answer the question: there is no copy constructor needed for T because no copy initialization actually takes place. And what constructor do you use when you initialize an object of type T with an expression of type T? Quote: As a further consequence, there is no defect in the Standard regarding this question, since a (very) close reading of a very recent draft of the Standard does provide the answer. I'm not sure. I don't see where the replacement of default-initialized with value-initialized changes anything. The problem is that neither default-initialization nore value-initialization are copy-initializations, so in one place, the standard still says that copy-initialization will be used, and in another, that value-initialization will be used. And it cannot be both. -- James Kanze GABI Software Conseils en informatique orientée objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Francis Glassborow Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini In article <44f4b491$0$18484$9b4e6d93 (AT) newsspool3 (DOT) arcor-online.net>, Jens Theisen <jth02 (AT) arcor (DOT) de> writes Quote: As we saw above, the array member is going to be value-initialized. My standard doesn't contain that term, I guess it's a C++0x thing? The 2003 amended version does. See 8.5 para 5 -- Francis Glassborow ACCU Author of 'You Can Do It!' and "You Can Program in C++" see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Matthias Hofmann Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini "Greg Herlihy" <greghe (AT) pacbell (DOT) net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1156920408.341392.291790 (AT) h48g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com... Quote: §8.5/15 clause 6 provides the final, missing step needed to complete the above analysis. To recap the line of reasoning so far: T array[0] = {}; is equivalent to: T array[0] = { T() }; Well, this is the question. Quote: which in turn can be interpreted as: T array[0] = T(); which in turn becomes: T t = T(); At this point, §8.5/15 provides a dramatic, surprising and satisfying dénouement: it turns out that a copy initialization in which the class of the source object is identical to - or derived from - the class of the destination object is - in fact - a direct initialization (for all practical purposes): T t(T()); I do not have the C++03 draft of the standard available so I don't know whether there have been changes to the meaning of direct initialization. But am I wrong in thinking that direct initialization requires a copy constructor even more than copy initialization? At least if the source and the target types are identical? -- Matthias Hofmann Anvil-Soft, CEO http://www.anvil-soft.com - The Creators of Toilet Tycoon http://www.anvil-soft.de - Die Macher des Klomanagers --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top James Dennett Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Jens Theisen wrote: Quote: Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote: [snip] Quote: You are referring to an old version of the standard. The 2003 version reads differently Interesting. Is this the draft of the new C++0x, or indeed an update of C++98? I would have thought that this is clearly distinguished and DRs for C++98 still refer to the old standard. The current C++ standard is ISO/IEC 14882:2003, aka C++03. C++03 is C++98 combined with TC1, which was not published separately so far as I know. (The current draft standard is, as one would expect, from 2006.) Quote: I agree that the name copy-initialization is confusing and the whole initialization process is in some cases complex and possibly unintuitive, but apart from that, the standard is very clear, IMHO. The old standard was contradicting itself, IMHO, but can only be interpreted in one sensible way as I see it (that being the latter correction of Matthias' DR). As we saw above, the array member is going to be value-initialized. My standard doesn't contain that term, I guess it's a C++0x thing? A C++03 thing, if memory serves. C++98 was somewhat defective in this area; with various corrections folded in it's better, though naturally still not perfect. -- James --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Matthias Hofmann Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini "Alberto Ganesh Barbati" <AlbertoBarbati (AT) libero (DOT) it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2F%Ig.86371$zy5.1470746 (AT) twister1 (DOT) libero.it... Quote: Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: Section 8.5/12 says: "The initialization that occurs in [...] and brace-enclosed initializer lists is called copy-initialization, and is equivalent to the form T x = a;", which seems to require an accessible copy constructor in the expression T arr[N] = {}; If you read carefully 8.5, you will see that the, despite the name, copy-initialization does not necessarily require a copy constructor. That is true for both arrays and non-arrays. This is a common misunderstanding. There was recently a thread about this on comp.lang.c++.moderate. I remember such a thread, I don't know whether it is the same as the one you are having in mind. That discussion was about template constructors, and there I have learned that a template constructor can do the job of a copy constructor in the case of copy initialization. It was also concluded that (if the source and target types are not identical) copy initialization is actually a conversion followed by direct initialization. Given that, the expression T arr[N] = {}; should require an accessible constructor that takes a T as its argument. This can be a copy constructor or a template constructor. Quote: However, section 8.5.1/7 says: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be default-initialized (8.5)." You are referring to an old version of the standard. The 2003 version reads differently: "If there are fewer initializers in the list than there are members in the aggregate, then each member not explicitly initialized shall be value-initialized (8.5)." Notice the "value-initialized" instead of the "default-initialized". Naively speaking, value-initialization is either default-initialization or zero-initialization according to the type of the object and/or the presence of user defined constructors. If I understand this correctly, value-initialization does not involve a copy constructor. This would make things clear. Quote: BTW: Always refer to the most recent version of the standard when submitting defect reports! Where can I get a copy of the latest draft? Quote: Now the problem is that the standard requires copy-initialization, while not providing for an object to be copied. Perhaps the intent is that only explicit initializers in the list are copy-initialization, but the standard is not clear here. I agree that the name copy-initialization is confusing and the whole initialization process is in some cases complex and possibly unintuitive, but apart from that, the standard is very clear, IMHO. I agree that the C++03 draft seems to be rather clear on that issue. -- Matthias Hofmann Anvil-Soft, CEO http://www.anvil-soft.com - The Creators of Toilet Tycoon http://www.anvil-soft.de - Die Macher des Klomanagers --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Alberto Ganesh Barbati Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Greg Herlihy ha scritto: Quote: "Matthias Hofmann" wrote: The question is whether in T arr[1] = {}; the object is copy initialized with a temporary that is in turn default initialized, such as in T arr[1] = { T() }; or whether no temporary is created, and the object that is default initialized is 'arr[0]' rather than a temporary. §8.5/15 clause 6 provides the final, missing step needed to complete the above analysis. §8.5/15 clause 6 does not apply, because clause 3 "Otherwise, if the destination type is an array, see 8.5.1." is in effect. The rest of the reasoning is therefore incorrect as it starts with a wrong assumption. Ganesh --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Francis Glassborow Guest Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini In article <4ll3adF2b73pU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Matthias Hofmann <hofmann@anvil-soft.com> writes Quote: I do not have the C++03 draft of the standard available It is not a draft, it is the current C++ Standard. -- Francis Glassborow ACCU Author of 'You Can Do It!' and "You Can Program in C++" see http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit For project ideas and contributions: http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/projects --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Alberto Ganesh Barbati Guest Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:55 am    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: Quote: "Alberto Ganesh Barbati" <AlbertoBarbati (AT) libero (DOT) it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2F%Ig.86371$zy5.1470746 (AT) twister1 (DOT) libero.it... Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: Given that, the expression T arr[N] = {}; should require an accessible constructor that takes a T as its argument. This can be a copy constructor or a template constructor. Incorrect. As I already wrote in another post, every element of the array is simply value-initialized. That is: 1) if T is a built-in type or if T is a class without any user-defined constructors, then every element is zero-initialized (well... I oversimplified a bit for classes, just to give you the idea. Actually, in this case, value-initialization is recursively applied to every non-static data member and base class, see 8.5/5 for details) 2) if T is a class with an accessible default constructor, then every element is default-initialized 3) if T is a class with user-defined constructors but without or with an inaccessible default constructor, then the code is ill-formed. In *no* cases the copy constructor is either required or used. Quote: If I understand this correctly, value-initialization does not involve a copy constructor. This would make things clear. Exactly. Quote: BTW: Always refer to the most recent version of the standard when submitting defect reports! Where can I get a copy of the latest draft? There's a link to it on the C++ Standard Committe website at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ (the most recent version currently is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1905.pdf) HTH, Ganesh --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top kanze Guest Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote: Quote: Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: "Alberto Ganesh Barbati" <AlbertoBarbati (AT) libero (DOT) it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2F%Ig.86371$zy5.1470746 (AT) twister1 (DOT) libero.it... Matthias Hofmann ha scritto: Given that, the expression T arr[N] = {}; should require an accessible constructor that takes a T as its argument. This can be a copy constructor or a template constructor. Incorrect. As I already wrote in another post, every element of the array is simply value-initialized. That's what it says in §8.5.1/7. No one is disputing that, and the differences between default-initialization and value-initialization aren't relevant here (since neither uses the copy constructor). The defect is that in §8.5/12, the standard says explicitly that copy-initialization (not value-initialization or default-initialization) is used. Which is a direct contradiction with §8.5.1/7. Given both statements, the question is whether for missing initializers, the statement in §8.5/12 doesn't hold (although I can't see any reason why not), or whether the intent is that value-initialization be used to create an initializer (which is then used according to the rule in §8.5/12). I think that both interpretations are possible, with the second probably closer to the meaning of the exact words in the standard. -- James Kanze GABI Software Conseils en informatique orientée objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top kanze Guest Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Defect Report: Copy-initialization in brace-enclosed ini Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote: [...] Quote: §8.5/15 clause 6 does not apply, because clause 3 "Otherwise, if the destination type is an array, see 8.5.1." is in effect. The rest of the reasoning is therefore incorrect as it starts with a wrong assumption. Yes and no. When all is said and done, §8.5.1 says that each member is initialized with the given expression, which brings us back to §8.5/15 for the individual members. And §8.5/12 says that when reading §8.5 for the individual members, the initialization is copy-initialization. (The example in §8.5.1/7 also says that the individual member of type int is initialized with int(). Regretfully, it's not normative text.) -- James Kanze GABI Software Conseils en informatique orientée objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 --- [ 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.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.