

ISO updates C standard - Mitt
http://h-online.com/-1400814

======
hornd
The committee seems to be taking one step backwards and one step forwards with
this publication. On the one hand, I'm glad they're adding support for
features such as static assertions that previously required ugly workarounds.
On the other, I think their idea of a threading library is somewhat laughable.
Also, I'm not fully sold on the idea of having 10 or so optional
implementation requirements.

The most important question, to me, is how many implementations will support
the full standard? Are we going to have another C99 wherein most vendors
maintain partial support?

------
_delirium
Is there any indication from major C-using projects what their opinions on the
standard are? For example, will anyone be moving from pthreads to C1X threads
for multithreading? I don't have a good read on how anticipated these features
are and what the uptake is likely to be.

~~~
m_for_monkey
There was an article posted and discussed just a few days ago, in case you've
missed it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3374953>

------
haberman
If only they had waited another few weeks it could have been C12. I hope
people don't confuse C11 with C++11 or think that they are related in any way.

