How to find the revision of C++ standard, where a specific requirement was removed or changed?
Let me give a concrete example to make it more clear what I exactly mean. I have two drafts of C++ standard: N4296 that is quite old now and more recent revision N4750. There are some subsections that I am interested in, e.g. [unord.hash]. Version N4296 requires from std::hash
to provide two nested types argument_type
and result_type
, but this requirement no longer present in N4750.
So, the question is how can I find the revision, where this requirement was removed and motivation for it?
c++ language-lawyer std
add a comment |
Let me give a concrete example to make it more clear what I exactly mean. I have two drafts of C++ standard: N4296 that is quite old now and more recent revision N4750. There are some subsections that I am interested in, e.g. [unord.hash]. Version N4296 requires from std::hash
to provide two nested types argument_type
and result_type
, but this requirement no longer present in N4750.
So, the question is how can I find the revision, where this requirement was removed and motivation for it?
c++ language-lawyer std
3
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago
add a comment |
Let me give a concrete example to make it more clear what I exactly mean. I have two drafts of C++ standard: N4296 that is quite old now and more recent revision N4750. There are some subsections that I am interested in, e.g. [unord.hash]. Version N4296 requires from std::hash
to provide two nested types argument_type
and result_type
, but this requirement no longer present in N4750.
So, the question is how can I find the revision, where this requirement was removed and motivation for it?
c++ language-lawyer std
Let me give a concrete example to make it more clear what I exactly mean. I have two drafts of C++ standard: N4296 that is quite old now and more recent revision N4750. There are some subsections that I am interested in, e.g. [unord.hash]. Version N4296 requires from std::hash
to provide two nested types argument_type
and result_type
, but this requirement no longer present in N4750.
So, the question is how can I find the revision, where this requirement was removed and motivation for it?
c++ language-lawyer std
c++ language-lawyer std
edited 43 mins ago
Ivan
3,53092344
3,53092344
asked 1 hour ago
user7122617user7122617
973
973
3
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago
add a comment |
3
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago
3
3
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This can actually be kind of hard.
Individual revisions
First, there's the list of closed core language issues (and the equivalent page for library issues), which gives you a paper reference and some date information.
There's the working group's mailings.
There's the standard's source whose history can be examined using Git tools and their friends. The commit log in theory should be useful — though I recommend noting down the name (e.g. a word like "N3690") of the Final Draft for each standard so that you can recognise it in the tag list.
This is your best bet if you're literally looking for the specific revision where a change was introduced.
Between standards
When trying to determine in which standard the change was introduced, personally I tend to just open up individual standard documents and do my own visual bisection. This works well if you know where the feature's wording is located in the standard, and if the wording is mostly compartmentalised in one place, though it can still be time consuming.
For motivations you'll be looking for the original proposal paper. If you manage to find the draft revision where the change was made, hopefully someone will have cross-referenced the name/ID of the proposal.
I also find that Google gives some good results when searching for this if you already have a vague idea of its contents: e.g. "C++ if declaration definition while for consistent proposal".
And, if you don't mind non-authoritative sources (which should nonetheless be reliable), there are usually Stack Overflow answers that track changes between C++ standards, with links to the relevant papers. For example, this answer to "What are the new features in C++17?", which references the changes to std::hash
that you mention.
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
add a comment |
Another source you can use is cppreference. They do a very good job in showing what is different in the different version of the standard. For instance, the std::hash
page lists that argument_type
and result_type
are deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++20. With that information you at least know that the remove happened in a version of the standard between C++17 and C++20, which is lot less versions to look through.
Additionally, in at least some sections, if there was a defect report there will also be a link to that defect report on the page.
You'll still have to do some hunting, but hopefully this will narrow it down for you.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54161761%2fhow-to-find-the-revision-of-c-standard-where-a-specific-requirement-was-remov%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This can actually be kind of hard.
Individual revisions
First, there's the list of closed core language issues (and the equivalent page for library issues), which gives you a paper reference and some date information.
There's the working group's mailings.
There's the standard's source whose history can be examined using Git tools and their friends. The commit log in theory should be useful — though I recommend noting down the name (e.g. a word like "N3690") of the Final Draft for each standard so that you can recognise it in the tag list.
This is your best bet if you're literally looking for the specific revision where a change was introduced.
Between standards
When trying to determine in which standard the change was introduced, personally I tend to just open up individual standard documents and do my own visual bisection. This works well if you know where the feature's wording is located in the standard, and if the wording is mostly compartmentalised in one place, though it can still be time consuming.
For motivations you'll be looking for the original proposal paper. If you manage to find the draft revision where the change was made, hopefully someone will have cross-referenced the name/ID of the proposal.
I also find that Google gives some good results when searching for this if you already have a vague idea of its contents: e.g. "C++ if declaration definition while for consistent proposal".
And, if you don't mind non-authoritative sources (which should nonetheless be reliable), there are usually Stack Overflow answers that track changes between C++ standards, with links to the relevant papers. For example, this answer to "What are the new features in C++17?", which references the changes to std::hash
that you mention.
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
add a comment |
This can actually be kind of hard.
Individual revisions
First, there's the list of closed core language issues (and the equivalent page for library issues), which gives you a paper reference and some date information.
There's the working group's mailings.
There's the standard's source whose history can be examined using Git tools and their friends. The commit log in theory should be useful — though I recommend noting down the name (e.g. a word like "N3690") of the Final Draft for each standard so that you can recognise it in the tag list.
This is your best bet if you're literally looking for the specific revision where a change was introduced.
Between standards
When trying to determine in which standard the change was introduced, personally I tend to just open up individual standard documents and do my own visual bisection. This works well if you know where the feature's wording is located in the standard, and if the wording is mostly compartmentalised in one place, though it can still be time consuming.
For motivations you'll be looking for the original proposal paper. If you manage to find the draft revision where the change was made, hopefully someone will have cross-referenced the name/ID of the proposal.
I also find that Google gives some good results when searching for this if you already have a vague idea of its contents: e.g. "C++ if declaration definition while for consistent proposal".
And, if you don't mind non-authoritative sources (which should nonetheless be reliable), there are usually Stack Overflow answers that track changes between C++ standards, with links to the relevant papers. For example, this answer to "What are the new features in C++17?", which references the changes to std::hash
that you mention.
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
add a comment |
This can actually be kind of hard.
Individual revisions
First, there's the list of closed core language issues (and the equivalent page for library issues), which gives you a paper reference and some date information.
There's the working group's mailings.
There's the standard's source whose history can be examined using Git tools and their friends. The commit log in theory should be useful — though I recommend noting down the name (e.g. a word like "N3690") of the Final Draft for each standard so that you can recognise it in the tag list.
This is your best bet if you're literally looking for the specific revision where a change was introduced.
Between standards
When trying to determine in which standard the change was introduced, personally I tend to just open up individual standard documents and do my own visual bisection. This works well if you know where the feature's wording is located in the standard, and if the wording is mostly compartmentalised in one place, though it can still be time consuming.
For motivations you'll be looking for the original proposal paper. If you manage to find the draft revision where the change was made, hopefully someone will have cross-referenced the name/ID of the proposal.
I also find that Google gives some good results when searching for this if you already have a vague idea of its contents: e.g. "C++ if declaration definition while for consistent proposal".
And, if you don't mind non-authoritative sources (which should nonetheless be reliable), there are usually Stack Overflow answers that track changes between C++ standards, with links to the relevant papers. For example, this answer to "What are the new features in C++17?", which references the changes to std::hash
that you mention.
This can actually be kind of hard.
Individual revisions
First, there's the list of closed core language issues (and the equivalent page for library issues), which gives you a paper reference and some date information.
There's the working group's mailings.
There's the standard's source whose history can be examined using Git tools and their friends. The commit log in theory should be useful — though I recommend noting down the name (e.g. a word like "N3690") of the Final Draft for each standard so that you can recognise it in the tag list.
This is your best bet if you're literally looking for the specific revision where a change was introduced.
Between standards
When trying to determine in which standard the change was introduced, personally I tend to just open up individual standard documents and do my own visual bisection. This works well if you know where the feature's wording is located in the standard, and if the wording is mostly compartmentalised in one place, though it can still be time consuming.
For motivations you'll be looking for the original proposal paper. If you manage to find the draft revision where the change was made, hopefully someone will have cross-referenced the name/ID of the proposal.
I also find that Google gives some good results when searching for this if you already have a vague idea of its contents: e.g. "C++ if declaration definition while for consistent proposal".
And, if you don't mind non-authoritative sources (which should nonetheless be reliable), there are usually Stack Overflow answers that track changes between C++ standards, with links to the relevant papers. For example, this answer to "What are the new features in C++17?", which references the changes to std::hash
that you mention.
edited 6 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Lightness Races in OrbitLightness Races in Orbit
285k51461785
285k51461785
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
add a comment |
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
"Happy to be shown where one is." There's one on this very website for C++17. It's not official, but it's probably the best you're going to get.
– Nicol Bolas
12 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas Not bad, and does list the OP's referenced change (albeit unintegrated)
– Lightness Races in Orbit
9 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
@NicolBolas I did a thing with the edit button
– Lightness Races in Orbit
6 mins ago
add a comment |
Another source you can use is cppreference. They do a very good job in showing what is different in the different version of the standard. For instance, the std::hash
page lists that argument_type
and result_type
are deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++20. With that information you at least know that the remove happened in a version of the standard between C++17 and C++20, which is lot less versions to look through.
Additionally, in at least some sections, if there was a defect report there will also be a link to that defect report on the page.
You'll still have to do some hunting, but hopefully this will narrow it down for you.
add a comment |
Another source you can use is cppreference. They do a very good job in showing what is different in the different version of the standard. For instance, the std::hash
page lists that argument_type
and result_type
are deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++20. With that information you at least know that the remove happened in a version of the standard between C++17 and C++20, which is lot less versions to look through.
Additionally, in at least some sections, if there was a defect report there will also be a link to that defect report on the page.
You'll still have to do some hunting, but hopefully this will narrow it down for you.
add a comment |
Another source you can use is cppreference. They do a very good job in showing what is different in the different version of the standard. For instance, the std::hash
page lists that argument_type
and result_type
are deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++20. With that information you at least know that the remove happened in a version of the standard between C++17 and C++20, which is lot less versions to look through.
Additionally, in at least some sections, if there was a defect report there will also be a link to that defect report on the page.
You'll still have to do some hunting, but hopefully this will narrow it down for you.
Another source you can use is cppreference. They do a very good job in showing what is different in the different version of the standard. For instance, the std::hash
page lists that argument_type
and result_type
are deprecated in C++17 and removed in C++20. With that information you at least know that the remove happened in a version of the standard between C++17 and C++20, which is lot less versions to look through.
Additionally, in at least some sections, if there was a defect report there will also be a link to that defect report on the page.
You'll still have to do some hunting, but hopefully this will narrow it down for you.
edited 41 mins ago
answered 50 mins ago
NathanOliverNathanOliver
88.3k15120184
88.3k15120184
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54161761%2fhow-to-find-the-revision-of-c-standard-where-a-specific-requirement-was-remov%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
The C++ draft git repository?
– Some programmer dude
1 hour ago
Are you asking about which version of the standard did this or which draft revision? Because I don't know why the latter would matter to you.
– Nicol Bolas
14 mins ago