<?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; Uncategorized</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cpp-next.com/archive/category/uncategorized/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>Appearing and Disappearing consts in&#160;C++</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/appearing-and-disappearing-consts-in-c/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/appearing-and-disappearing-consts-in-c/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Scott Meyers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=3652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[C++Next is happy to republish the following article by Scott Meyers, with Scott&#8217;s permission, of course. Thanks, Scott! If you write “int i;” in C++, i’s type seems obvious: int. If you write “const int i;”, i’s type seems equally obviously to be const int. Often, these types are exactly what they seem to be, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/04/appearing-and-disappearing-consts-in-c/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</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>Howard&#039;s STL / Move Semantics&#160;Benchmark</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/howards-stl-move-semantics-benchmark/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/howards-stl-move-semantics-benchmark/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>hinnant</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=2768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Editor's note: with this post we proudly resurrect a classic from 2006 that was nearly lost to the pitiless churn of the interwebs. We're very pleased to be able to save these results for posterity!] Howard E. Hinnant 2006-05-30 STL Benchmarks This is a preliminary performance test exercising the performance of complex STL data structures [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/10/howards-stl-move-semantics-benchmark/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</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>
		<item>
		<title>Only 3 days left for C++0x&#160;Comments!</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/05/only-3-days-left-for-c0x-comments/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/05/only-3-days-left-for-c0x-comments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 20:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=1313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In case you haven&#8217;t been paying attention, the final Committee Draft of the C++0x standard is out for review, and there is not much time left to make sure we fix any stupid mistakes, wrongheaded blunders, etc. To be specific, the official comment period ends 27 May, and if you submit a comment to your [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/05/only-3-days-left-for-c0x-comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To Auto or Not?  That is the&#160;Question</title>
		<link>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/02/to-auto-or-not-that-is-the-question/</link>
		<comments>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/02/to-auto-or-not-that-is-the-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Abrahams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cpp-next.com/?p=1005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This entry is part of a series, Mapping Concepts: Safety, and Convenience&#187; In this article series, we&#8217;re trying to understand the consequences of choosing to make a given concept auto—so the compiler can decide that types model the concept on the basis of syntactic structure alone—or non-auto—so types must be explicitly declared to be models, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cpp-next.com/archive/2010/02/to-auto-or-not-that-is-the-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

