C++ on SeaACCU on Sea 2026 SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT: Contract Assertions on Virtual Functions by Timur Doumler
https://accuonsea.uk/2026/sessions/contract-assertions-on-virtual-functions
Register now at https://accuonsea.uk/tickets/
ACCUConfACCU on Sea 2026 SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT: Contract Assertions on Virtual Functions by Timur Doumler
https://accuonsea.uk/2026/sessions/contract-assertions-on-virtual-functions
Register now at https://accuonsea.uk/tickets/
KDABWhat can C++ developers expect from C++26 and beyond?
In this final part of the interview, Nicolai Josuttis and Jesper Pedersen talk about C++26, the feature freeze process, Contracts, the growing role of Reflection, and more.
Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vsSJNWAiDw
#CPlusPlus #CPP #Cpp26 #Cpp29 #ModernCpp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vsSJNWAiDw
From C++26 to C++29: Insights From Nicolai Josuttis Into Contracts, Reflection and Other Features
Matthias Kretz | Vir@mhoemmen mdspan feature request ๐:
Allow mdspan::operator[] with one argument less than rank.
Mandates/Constraints: The resulting range is contiguous in memory.
Returns: A span (of static extent, if possible).
Then I can use std::simd CTAD from range:
simd::basic_vec(B[k], simd::flag_aligned);
instead of:
simd::unchecked_load<simd::vec<T, N>>(&B[k, 0], &B[k, N-1], simd::flag_aligned);
The former is not only simpler but also safer.
Dani (
Antifascista)People need to be aware that the linked blog post is about a fictional world, which may or - more likely - may not become reality.
To have an impact, a fleshed out proposal with such changes to the C++ standard needs to show up in the committee to be discussed and voted on there. From what I can see so far, I'd like to see much better reasoning to support such a change.
If ever, the proposed syntax may become a thing in the next decade. Until then, there are other options to achive the desired behaviour.
C++NowC++Now 2026 SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT: C++ Libraries - The Road Ahead by Jeffrey Garland
https://schedule.cppnow.org/session/2026/c-libraries/
Register now at https://cppnow.org/registration/
Can we fix the following inconsistency in #CPlusPlus: https://compiler-explorer.com/z/qsYeTncE4? A conversion operator is sufficient to call wrapped function pointers. But it does not work for wrapped callable objects. And that's even though `wrapper` in the above example has the callable type in its associated namespaces (ADL). ADL was introduced to make operators work. I patched my #GCC to make it work and I like it.
Compiler Explorer - C++ (x86-64 gcc (trunk))
template <typename T> struct wrapper { T value; constexpr operator const T&() const { return value; } #if 0 constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(auto&&... args) { return value(args...); } #endif }; int f1(int); auto f2 = [](int x) { return f1(x); }; int test1() { return wrapper{f1}(1); } int test2() { return wrapper{f2}(1); }
@mkretz
"We violently agree" ๐ธ
But P3802 will certainly have to wait until #cpp29 to become a portable C++ feature for apparent procedural reasons: it appeared *after* #cpp26 feature freeze, was never discussed in EWG, nor made it into a plenary vote. AFAICS, the mistake of #cpp0x will not be made again.
Lexy PltC++29 will be postponed to C++31
Otherwise we'll miss C++64, which has to integrate a fully functional C64 emulator in the standard library, called Commodore++64 (or C++64 for short)
CppConWe have released a new CppCon 2023 Video!
File I/O for Game Developers: Past, Present, and Future with C++ โ Guy Davidson โ CppCon 2023
https://youtu.be/1CdduHa-KgA
#cpp #cpp29 #Files #GameDevelopment #Hardware #IO #Windows
