Does anyone know where I can get an digital copy of the C++ standard for download? My google-fu does not appear to be strong enough.
+6
A:
The C++ standards committee has a link to it (Titled "Current C++ Standard Working Paper") It's not a finalised standard yet, so it's still a working paper.
[Edit: Actually, I think that one is the current one, Just browse around the site, it's all there somewhere. ISO/IEC 14882 is the formal name of the c++ standard I believe. 1998 was the original, there was a revision in 2003. I don't think the 0x update has a formal name yet]
Simon P Stevens
2009-06-18 18:13:47
That page also has published versions of the standard.
JeffP
2009-06-18 18:16:15
Yes, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf seems to be the latest draft, the current standard would also be useful.
Danielb
2009-06-18 18:18:54
This one is more recent: (linked from "Current WP"): http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf . Not sure why "Current WP" and "Current C++ Standard Working Paper" links differ...
Johannes Schaub - litb
2009-06-18 18:20:01
Priceless footnote on the first page: It’s known to be incomplet and incorrekt
Sinan Ünür
2009-06-18 18:27:12
@litb: Yeah, I noticed that. I put it down to standards committees just being weird. They seem to have a like for obscure numbers for names and making everything extra complex, and why is a final copy called a 'working paper' =:). (You can also get it direct from ISO is you like paying for things - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38110)
Simon P Stevens
2009-06-18 18:28:06
No the one linked by "Current C++ Standard Working Paper" has many C++0x stuff included and is of fall (october) last year. It appears there are two things: Standard Working Papers (the one of last year), and Working Drafts (the one of April this year). Maybe there is some common scheme in ISO how these things are to be called?
Johannes Schaub - litb
2009-06-18 18:47:08
A:
moderator says: I've removed this link due to claims that it is... "not quite legit". If I am incorrect, please re edit it (see revisions).
Vova
2009-06-18 18:15:22
+2
A:
I found Techstreet's page here. Not quite cheap enough to tempt me to upgrade from my original (pre-2003) version.
David Thornley
2009-06-18 18:22:20