<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>C++Next &#187; Dave Abrahams</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cpp-next.com/archive/author/dave/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cpp-next.com</link>
	<description>The next generation of C++</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:58:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>A Breakthrough for&#160;Concepts</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/12/a-breakthrough-for-concepts/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/12/a-breakthrough-for-concepts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=4003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This entry is part of a series, Having It All&#187; In the last article in this series, I mentioned that we&#8217;ve solved the problem with polymorphic lambdas and concepts, and I promised to discuss it here. So here we go! Quick concepts review Just like type declarations, concepts would add two kinds of type-checking to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/12/a-breakthrough-for-concepts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Having it all: Pythy syntax for&#160;C++</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/11/having-it-all-pythy-syntax/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/11/having-it-all-pythy-syntax/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This entry is part of a series, Having It All&#187; As I&#8217;ve been dreaming about the future of C++, I&#8217;ve started to ask myself, &#8220;what if we could have it all?&#8221; What if we could write C++ code with the agility of Python programmers, and still have all the static checking we really want, when [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/11/having-it-all-pythy-syntax/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BoostCon 2011: Early Registration Deadline&#160;Approaching</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/boostcon-2011-registration-deadline-approaching/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/boostcon-2011-registration-deadline-approaching/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Boost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The premier annual US C++ event, BoostCon, runs May 15-20, 2011 in beautiful Aspen, Colorado! Hans Boehm, the father of C++ garbage collection and the C++0x threading model, headlines the fifth annual Boost Conference, with his keynote, &#8220;Threads and Shared Variables in C++0x.&#8221; Other sessions about which which I&#8217;m personally excited: Christopher Kohlhoff, the author [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/boostcon-2011-registration-deadline-approaching/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recommended&#160;Reading</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/03/recommended-reading/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/03/recommended-reading/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s some very nice empirical work on evaluating the costs and benefits of using C++ exception-handling in this post.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/03/recommended-reading/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>W00t W00t Nix&#160;Nix!</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/02/w00t-w00t-nix-nix/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/02/w00t-w00t-nix-nix/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:47:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Value Semantics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iso]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wg21]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, Michal Mocny published an article applauding the C++ Committee&#8217;s recent decision to keep implicitly-generated move operations in the C++0x standard. I disagree, and I think it raises some really interesting questions about the standardization process and what&#8217;s next for C++, which I&#8217;ll discuss at the end. For those of you who missed my previous [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/02/w00t-w00t-nix-nix/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Give a Talk at BoostCon&#160;2011</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/01/give-a-talk-at-boostcon-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/01/give-a-talk-at-boostcon-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:11:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Happy new year, everybody! First, I want to thank you all for making 2010 such a great year for this site. The discussions and ideas have been excellent, and we&#8217;re looking forward to an even better 2011. But first, a quick plea to all our readers: this year&#8217;s BoostCon, scheduled for May 15-20 in beautiful [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/01/give-a-talk-at-boostcon-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Implicit Move&#160;Must Go</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/implicit-move-must-go/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/implicit-move-must-go/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Value Semantics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[implicit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rvalue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wg21]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=2711</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi everybody. The bulk of this article is going to be a C++ Standards Committee document, but I&#8217;m posting it here because of its relevance to the article series on rvalue references we&#8217;ve been running here at C++Next. I&#8217;ve been promising a followup to that series, and having this article on the site is actually [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/implicit-move-must-go/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elements of Programming&#160;Chapter 3 Exercise Summary</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/chapter-3-exercises/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/chapter-3-exercises/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EoP Study Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exercises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=1896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This entry is part of a series, Elements of Programming&#187; [please see the preface post for information on getting starting with this study group.] We&#8217;re back with answers to the exercises for chapter 3, from Piotr Jachowicz. Good job, Piotr! In fact, he&#8217;s the only one that submitted answers; step it up, the rest of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/chapter-3-exercises/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Introducing:&#160;David Sankel</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/07/introducing-david-sankel/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/07/introducing-david-sankel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Functional Programming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=1402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most fascinating talks I saw at BoostCon 2010 was David Sankel, speaking about how to apply the fundamental mathematical ideas of functional programming in C++, using Boost. I asked David if he&#8217;d like to post some articles here about it, and I&#8217;m very pleased to announce the first one in his series, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/07/introducing-david-sankel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Formal verification of an operating system&#160;kernel</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/06/formal-verification-of-an-operating-system-kernel/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/06/formal-verification-of-an-operating-system-kernel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[formal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kernel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proof]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/06/formal-verification-of-an-operating-system-kernel/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was just reading Communications of the ACM and ran across the article mentioned here. I used to think that nobody knew how to do formal verification of &#8220;type unsafe&#8221; languages that stay close enough to the machine model to be highly performant. Pretty cool.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/06/formal-verification-of-an-operating-system-kernel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

