c++03

I'm catching a compile error when attempting to use unique_ptr on Apple platforms with -std=c++11 : $ make c++ -std=c++11 -DNDEBUG -g2 -O3 -fPIC -march=native -Wall -Wextra -pipe -c 3way.cpp In file included ... ./smartptr.h:23:27: error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in namespace 'std' using auto_ptr = std::unique_ptr<T>; ~~~~~^ ./smartptr.h:23:37: error: expected ';' after alias declaration using auto_ptr = std::unique_ptr<T>; According to Marshall Clow, who I consider an expert on the C++ Standard Library with Clang and Apple : Technical Report #1 (TR1) was a set of library additions to the C+

The constexpr keyword was introduced in C++11, as (I think) was the corresponding idea of "constant expressions." However, this concept was implicitly present in C++98/c++03, since array declarations require a constant expression: // valid: int a[sizeof(int)]; int b[3+7]; int c[13/4]; const int n = 3; int d[n]; // invalid: int m = 4; int e[m]; There are other "constant expressions", i.e., expressions that can be (and/or must be) evaluated at compile-time; one example is template arguments. For pre-C++11, do the following exist, either in the C++98/03 standards or elsewhere? A complete list of

I noticed that assigning a char to a const int& compiles, but assigning it to a int& gives a compilation error. char c; int& x = c; // this fails to compile const int& y = c; // this is ok I understand that it is not a good practice to do this, but I am curious to know the reason why it happens. I have searched for an answer by looking for "assigning to reference of different type", "assigning char to a int reference", and "difference between const reference and non-const reference", and came across a number of useful posts ( int vs const int& , Weird behaviour when assigning a char to a int

I read a lot of posts here with the question if the standard containers for C++ (like "list" or "map" are thread safe and all of them said that it is not in general. Parallel reads should be OK, but parallel writes or parallel reads and writes may cause problems. Now I found out that at www.cplusplus.com that accessing or modifying the list during most of the operations is safe. Some examples: map::find The container is accessed (neither the const nor the non-const versions modify the container). No mapped values are accessed: concurrently accessing or modifying elements is safe. map::insert

In C++03, Boost's Foreach, using this interesting technique , can detect at run-time whether an expression is an lvalue or an rvalue. (I found that via this StackOverflow question: Rvalues in C++03 ) Here's a demo of this working at run-time (This is a more basic question that arose while I was thinking about this other recent question of mine . An answer to this might help us answer that other question.) Now that I've spelled out the question, testing rvalue-ness in C++03 at compile-time, I'll talk a little about the things I've been trying so far. I want to be able to do this check at