ISO C ++标准草案 [英] ISO C++ standard draft
问题描述
在ISO标准C ++中：最新工作草案 n3291 ，它不公开提供。但 n3290 是可用的。到2月份草稿为 n3242 。我可以知道现在..哪个草稿更正确，成为最终草案？因为 n3242 与 n3290 相比有很多区别？
In the ISO standard C++ : the latest working draft is n3291 ,it is not publicly available. But n3290 is Available. up-to February the draft is n3242. May i know now .. which draft is more correct to become an final draft? Because there are many differences in n3242 compared with n3290 ?
在这个链接中，他们给了..：当前工作草稿为 n3242 ？ （为什么 n3290 ）
in this link also they gave ..: current working draft as n3242 ? (why not n3290)
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x
请告诉我哪个草稿是正确的（直到最终草稿发布）。
please tell me which draft is correct one to follow (till the final draft release ) ?
推荐答案
有一段时间，n3291可以从显而易见的URL（只搜索和替换 n3242 与 n3291 在维基百科链接）。但我猜，有人决定太接近最终版本，所以它不再可访问。
For a while, n3291 was available from the obvious URL (just search and replace n3242 with n3291 in the Wikipedia link). But I guess somebody decided that was too close to the final version so it is no longer accessible.
因此维基百科没有链接到它，因为没有什么可链接到。
Thus Wikipedia does not link to it because there is nothing to link to.
在n3291可用的时候，我收藏了一份副本。我没有做详尽的搜索，但似乎没有实质性的变化;只有澄清。例如，n3242的第1.8节（6）是：
I did stash away a copy of n3291 while it was available. I have not done an exhaustive search, but there appear to be no substantive changes; only clarifications. For example, section 1.8 (6) of n3242 reads:
除非对象是位字段或基类子对象为零
大小，那个对象的地址是它
占据的第一个字节的地址。两个不同的对象，既不是位字段也不是基本的
类子对象零大小应有不同的地址。
Unless an object is a bit-field or a base class subobject of zero size, the address of that object is the address of the first byte it occupies. Two distinct objects that are neither bit-fields nor base class subobjects of zero size shall have distinct addresses.
n3291的相同部分读取：
While the same section of n3291 reads:
除非对象是位字段或零基本类的子对象，该对象的地址是
占据的第一个字节的地址。不是位字段的两个对象可以具有相同的
地址，如果一个是另一个的子对象，或者如果至少一个是零大小的
基本类子对象，并且它们具有不同的类型;
否则，它们将具有不同的地址。
Unless an object is a bit-field or a base class subobject of zero size, the address of that object is the address of the first byte it occupies. Two objects that are not bit-fields may have the same address if one is a subobject of the other or if at least one is a base class subobject of zero size and they are of different types; otherwise, they shall have distinct addresses.
（n3291使用红色穿透和下划线蓝色文本突出显示n3242，所以很难找到这个例子。）
(n3291 uses red strike-through and underlined blue text to highlight changes from n3242, so it was not hard to find this example.)
如果有人可以做一个令人信服的论据，我会重新发布n3291是合法的，我会很高兴使它可用。我当然没有输入任何密码，甚至点击一个协议，然后下载...
If someone can make a convincing argument that it would be legal for me to re-publish n3291, I would be happy to make it available. I certainly did not have to enter any password or even click on an agreement before downloading it...
[更新：在我的第一个版本的这个答案，我写 n3290，当我的意思是n3291。 工作草案的数字比最终版本高的怪异。 ）
[Update: In my first version of this answer, I wrote "n3290" when I meant "n3291". Kind of weird that the "working draft" has a higher number than the "final version". Anyway, what was freely available for a while was n3291.]
[更新2： N3337 是下一个 C ++标准的初始草稿，它非常类似于C ++ 11最终标准。请参阅：
[Update 2: N3337 is an initial draft of the next C++ standard, and it is very similar to the C++11 final standard. See:
所以你有自由选择草案;最后一个在官方标准（N3242）之前，第一个之后（N3337）。所有似乎都使用相同的段落编号。]
So you have your choice of free drafts; the last one before the official standard (N3242), and the first one after it (N3337). All appear to use the same paragraph numbering.]
这篇关于ISO C ++标准草案的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
