Stroustrup's talk on C++0x

[Downs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Craig Black wrote:
> 
>> First, D needs to at the very least match the features that are added to
>> C++ with regards to parallelism and concurrency.
> 
> Yes, I already had some discussions and proposal about this in another 
> thread. 
> 
> - More explicit loop notion which can do map(), reduce(), filter().
See also my "Some tools for D" post. I implemented those with iterators,
but they're trivial to do as freestanding functions.
>   These are well understood and known idioms, which explicitly state how the
>   data dependency is with just a single keyword. OpenMP basically does just 
>   this plus some thread management for advanced stuff.
>   -> Easy to add now and improve later support with newer library functions.
>   -> Allows also to let the compiler do the optimisation via auto 
>      vectorisation for simpler cases (like shorter loop bodies).
GCC has autovectorization support in principle, so whenever the gdc
maintainer gets around to fixing the tree format for statements, gdc
will be able to take advantage of this.
> 
> - Please remove the inXX() and outXX() intrinsics.
>   They are oneliners in asm on X86 and not present on many architectures.
> 
I don't know those; what do they do?
> - asm construct should be backend dependent.
[snip asm stuff]
> 
>> Other than that, fixing compiler bugs is probably the most important thing
>> for D right now.
Definitely agreed.
> I am especially looking forward to fixes that will make
>> __traits usable (if that's still what it's called).
> 
> Yes, progress there is most exciting for me at the moment and I think the
> developers do a good job there.
>  
>> One particular feature of pesonal interest is better support for structs
>> (ctors, dtors, etc.)
Also agreed. _Please_.
> This will help with complex mathematical data
>> structures that I use that must be uber-efficient.
> 
> ctors which only assign and MUST assign all values might be very useful.
> Static initializers with C99 syntax will be very welcome, too.
> 
>> As far as these new namfangled macros, D is so powerful already, I don't
>> really know exactly what this will give us over what we already have.  But
>> perhaps I haven't given this as much thought as others have.
> 
> Are there any articles about the current macro design decisions?
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Ingo Oeser
- --downs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzSrdpEPJRr05fBERAlXxAJ9uxf9C9IDQ4xwpS1U6ZR2ymGHFpQCgmSro
TJhan50sNAM0WqVkuOGMD60=
=7Eka
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----