Talk:cpp/language/history

C history?
Shouldn't this page include C history as well? The C standard is still being revised, and the C and C++ standards do borrow each other's features.

I mean, we don't need a full changelog for either standard, but it makes sense to mention. --- Undeterminant 12:07, 26 February 2012 (PST)


 * That's a good question. My feeling is that C and C++ are different languages, but if there are pieces of C history that make sense to mention in the context of C++ history, then they might be appropriate here. Nate 13:12, 26 February 2012 (PST)

Committee draft
Has anyone seen the Committee draft floating somewhere in the internet? I think we could start documenting the C++14 stuff (hidden for now) if some semi-official document was available. P12 18:09, 9 May 2013 (PDT)
 * Only the minutes were published so far. Once the post-Bristol mailing comes out with the CD, I'll be happy to help with publishing the changes here too. GCC is already implementing some C++14 features, ahead of the official document. --Cubbi 19:33, 9 May 2013 (PDT)

new/delete elision?
This page and various re-hostings of it seem to be the only thing on the internet referring to "new/delete elision." What is this referring to? Cogwheel (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2015 (PDT)
 * 5.3.4[expr.new]/10 "An implementation is allowed to omit a call..." --Cubbi (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2015 (PDT)

Defect Reports Seem Too Long
Defect Reports Seem Too Long. It's hard for us to edit or view source. How about put them into different templates and include them by this page?
 * I agree, template could make it simpler to edit. --Cubbi (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2017 (PST)

NO "strings" class in CFront
Proposal for a small correction:

AFAIK a strings library was NOT part of early CFront. I teach and develop software with C++ since the early 1990s and worked with a CFront-based C++ version sold by Comeau Computing at that time.

YES: there were (I/O)-streams. YES: there were complex numbers NO: there were no strings[*]

Maybe Comeau didn't port that part of the library? Or it was part of the "task system library" which also wasn't inf my release? But it also isn't mentioned here: https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/c_plus_plus/library And checking the source tree it appears a string class library was not part of CFront until C++98 support was added.

(*: though with C++ features it was quite easy to build a decent string class yourself)

As the least the word "string" should not link to the `std::string` reference as at that time string classes (often shown as a typical C++ example in text books) were far from the what became part of C++98.

Mwe (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2022 (PDT)


 * Our primary reference here is Bjarne's HOPL-II paper, where he mentions the 1985 string library
 * in "3.2 Cfront"
 * In that same time period I designed C84, [...] designed and implemented the first string class together with Jonathan Shopiro
 * and in "5.3 Libraries"
 * Much of the work on designing classes was done in cooperation with Jonathan Shopiro who in 1983 produced list and string classes that saw wide use within AT&T and are the basis for the classes currently found in the ‘‘Standard Components’’ library that was developed in Bell labs and is now sold by USL.


 * following the author's name, I find this historical note about early standard library evolution by Chuck Allison


 * Jonathan Shopiro developed the first string and list classes, which eventually led to the development of the container classes now found in the AT&T Standard C++ Components, a library of more than 50 classes. By the time Release 2.0 came out in 1989, the Components were standard AT&T issue.


 * though that page also acknowledges that by 1990 "All vendors offered at least one string class", and HOPL acknowledges that Bjarne did not include string in release 1.0 and it was a mistake. I just updated cppreference history to say it was an 'AT&T string library' --Cubbi (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2022 (PDT)