 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
I think that the statement "C++03 [...] significantly expands the size of the standard library." is wrong. The source given for that doesn't back this statement up in any way. On the contraray, with the statement "From a programmer's view there is none." (refering to the difference between C++98 and C++03) in the source it seems highly unlikely, since the standard library is of high importance to any programmer using the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.232.22 ( talk) 08:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just added a "dubious" template. Before I discovered this talk entry, I had a dubious argument reading: reason=Statement cited bsfaq, which emphatically does not say this, and it appears to me to be an editor's confusion with additions that later became TR1. — MaxEnt 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed this statement. It is just plain wrong. 206.55.177.99 ( talk) 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on C++03. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C++03
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The statement "While most implementations satisfied this expectation, it was not required by C++98" should be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czipperz ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
I think that the statement "C++03 [...] significantly expands the size of the standard library." is wrong. The source given for that doesn't back this statement up in any way. On the contraray, with the statement "From a programmer's view there is none." (refering to the difference between C++98 and C++03) in the source it seems highly unlikely, since the standard library is of high importance to any programmer using the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.232.22 ( talk) 08:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just added a "dubious" template. Before I discovered this talk entry, I had a dubious argument reading: reason=Statement cited bsfaq, which emphatically does not say this, and it appears to me to be an editor's confusion with additions that later became TR1. — MaxEnt 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed this statement. It is just plain wrong. 206.55.177.99 ( talk) 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on C++03. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C++03
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The statement "While most implementations satisfied this expectation, it was not required by C++98" should be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czipperz ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)