

C++0x Final Committee Draft Approved - EricBurnett
http://herbsutter.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/trip-report-march-2010-iso-c-standards-meeting/

======
jrockway
One thing I didn't realize until now is that the "0x" is not some reference to
0x1234568, but rather, it was supposed to be the last two digits of some year
between 2000 and 2009. Oops.

Anyway, I still don't see the point of C++ anymore. Is C++0x just for making
legacy C++ codebases slightly easier to maintain by adding a few features over
C++ + Boost?

~~~
machrider
I think the most important change to C++ is the addition of a memory model and
standard primitives for threading. In its current state, writing a truly
thread-safe, portable program in C++ is nearly impossible.

Edit: For some detail on the subject, see Boehm's paper, "Threads cannot be
implemented as a library."
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf> [PDF]

------
j_baker
Shouldn't it be C++xx?

~~~
frou_dh
C++0B

~~~
weaksauce
C++0xB?

~~~
bricestacey
0xB is hex for 10

~~~
weaksauce
I know... his was missing an x is all.

